LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. RECEIVED BY EXCHANGE Class CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORIENTAL HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY No. IV THE WITNESS OF THE VULGATE, PESHITTA AND SEPTUAGINT TO THE TEXT OF ZEPHANIAH BY SIDNEY ZANDSTRA SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY NEW YORK 1909 THE WITNESS OF THE VULGATE, PESHITTA AND SEPTUAGINT TO THE TEXT OF ZEPHANIAH CONTRIBUTIONS TO ORIENTAL HISTORY AND PHILOLOGY No. IV THE WITNESS OF THE YULGATE, PESHITTA AND SEPTUAGINT TO THE TEXT OF ZEPHANIAH BY SIDNEY ZANDSTRA SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, IN THE FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK 1909 Copyright, 1909 BY THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PEESS Printed from type. Published May, 1909 THE TUTTLE, MOREHOU6E A TAYLOR COMPANY. NOTE. No complete examination of the relation of the chief Versions of the Old Testament to the original Hebrew has been made with especial reference to the Book of Zephaniah. Dr. Zandstra has in the following Essay supplied this want with much care and discretion. RICHARD GOTTHEIL. May 20th, 1909. 205723 CONTENTS. Chapter Introduction, I. The Vulgate, II. The Peshitta, III. The Septuagint, - IV. The Interdependence of the. Versions, - 1-6 - 6-17 - 18-24 - 24-35 - 35-38 V. Departures from Massoretic Tradition and Variants from Consonantal Text, - 38-45 VI. Conclusion, - - 45-47 Appendix I. Difficulties in the Hebrew Text, - 4749 Appendix II. Conjectural and Higher Criticism of the Text, - 49-52 INTRODUCTION. I. It is proposed in the following pages to study the text of Zephaniah in the light of the ancient primary versions. This study was undertaken largely to become familiar with Old Testa- ment Criticism a field of which it is peculiarly true that orien- tation is possible only at first hand. The choice of so short a text is vindicated by the almost unanimous verdict of scholars that the work of the translators of these versions is very uneven in quality. It is in fact still a moot question whether the Minor Prophets were translated into Greek by one individual or by many ; and the arguments that have been advanced 1 to show that the Peshitta is not really a deliberate translation, but rather the final stereotyped form that traditional renderings of various origins assumed, have never been satisfactorily met. The reasons for the choice of this particular text are two. (a.) Though the Hebrew of Zephaniah presents many difficulties, no complete study of its text corresponding to such work as has been done on Micah by Ryssel 2 seems ever to have been made, (b.) In critical commentaries it always occupies a subordinate place among the Minor Prophets, and in textual studies it is entirely overshadowed by the more important books of the division of the Canon to which it belongs. 3 This neglect, whatever its explanation may be, makes Zephaniah a good choice for a textual study. As it would be fatal presumption for one to ignore the work of prede- cessors, whether it bore directly or indirectly on one's theme, it 1 Perles, Meletemata Peschittoniana, 1859, p. 48. a Ryssel, Untersuchungen uber die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Micha, 1887. aSchwally's Das Such Zephanja, Z.A.T.W. (1885), pp. 183 ff., is the only separate commentary outside of the well-known English and German critical series accessible to the general student. Bachmann has written specifically about the text of Zephaniah in an article entitled Zur Textkritik des Propheten Zephanja, S.K. (1894) ; his article is, however, but a statement of conclusions, and it is characterized by a most reckless spirit of conjecture. Here and there a brief note on some proposed emendation is to be found ; cf. Z.A.T.W. (1885), pp. 183 ff. and Z.A.T.W. (1891), pp. 185 f., 260 ff. 2 The Text of Zephaniah. goes almost without saying that all available sources of informa- tion have been carefully examined and freely laid under tribute. That which is presented, while based on original investigation, has thus also of necessity the virtue of being a more or less com plete digest of the work of others. 1 II. Because Old Testament Criticism is still for many reasons a wilderness through which each one must in large part blaze his own trail, it seems necessary to preface the statement of the method chosen in this examination by some more general remarks that shall not only explain it, but also justify its use. (A.) The thesis that all extant Hebrew sources for the text of the Old Testament, both in manuscript and in print, go back to a first century archetype, was first advanced by Lagarde in 1863. The chief supports of this thesis are the remarkable uniformity that is found in the manuscripts on the one hand, and the sup- posedly large number of corruptions in the text on the other. These two phenomena are mutually exclusive in an ancient docu- ment that has been accurately transmitted from its autograph, and their conjunction in this case is said to demand a comparatively late date for the common source to which all manuscripts and printed editions converge. The date of this hypothetical archetype is fixed in the first century by certain external characteristics that the text presents and by known facts in Jewish History. 3 Strack, who about thirty years ago could pass over this view in silence, 3 states in his article on the Text of the Old Testament in 1 A bibliography has not been prepared because complete lists of the literature that must be consulted abound. Berger (Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siecles du moyen dge), Swete (The Old Testament in Greek) and Nestle (Urtext und Ubersetzungen der Bibel, reprinted in the Real-Encyclop'adie fur protest. Theologie und Kirche) are practically exhaustive as far as the general literature is concerned. To the commentaries mentioned in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible (article Zephaniah) those of Marti and Driver must be added ; in the miscellaneous literature Ehrlich (Mikrd Ki-Pheschut6, III, pp. 456-463) may well be included. This last work is written in Hebrew, but a German translation of the passages discussed is given. 2 In a few characteristic paragraphs (Symmicta, II, pp. 120, 121), intended primarily to show that this thesis was entirely original with himself, Lagarde incidentally gives a brief account of how it had been received by scholars up to 1880. It appears that Ols- hausen had independently reached a very similar view through a different process of reasoning. Cf, further Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, pp. 313-320 ; W. R. Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 56 ; Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text of Samuel, pp. xxxix ff. 8 Lagarde, Symmicta, II, p. 120. Introduction. 3 Hastings 1 Dictionary of the jBible that it is accepted by most moderns. He himself does not accept it, but holds that the cus- tom of consigning manuscripts that had been damaged by the tooth of time, by fire, or by water, or that were found to contain more than a certain number of mistakes, to the so-called genizah, which was generally a room in the cellar of a synagogue, is suffi- cient to explain all the 1 phenomena. This thesis, whether true or not, offers striking proof that the present Hebrew text gives but scant aid in tracing its own history beyond a certain point, or in fixing its earliest form. Moreover, there are but few manuscripts, of which none are very old, and textual types the chief material for the criticism of texts are thus not to be found. 1 But it is a cardinal principle of criticism that to recover the true text of an ancient document it is first necessary to know its history ; and that manuscripts, although the text which they contain is undated and unlocalized, generally furnish the primary data for reconstruct- ing this history with the help of versions, which serve in a sec- ondary capacity to fix the time and place of origin of the differ- ent textual types that the manuscripts present. In the Old Tes- tament, however, there are no types of text in regard to which versions can be made to indicate a choice, but they themselves become the principal data. Instead of being called on to show from which particular type of two or more existing types it was made, a version must surrender the text on which it was based, in order that it may then be decided whether that text agrees with or differs from the single Hebrew textual type. Because a version must thus itself yield the text from which it was made, Old Testament Criticism is complicated by all the variable factors necessarily connected with translation and translators. (B.) Languages are for the most part so different in genius that translation from one into another is often impossible without theft 1 Ginsburg's new ' Edition of the Hebrew Bible according to the Massoretic Text of Jacob Ben Chayim ' (British and Foreign Bible Society, August, 1908) contains the results of a collation of 71 manuscripts and 19 early printed editions. The editor has presuma- bly used everything that seemed worth using in this latest edition and yet there are at most but 27 manuscripts and 9 early printed editions of the Prophets cited. The earliest of the manuscripts is dated 916 A. D. Although sixth century dates have been defended for certain manuscripts, that of the Pentateuch from circa 820-850 (Or. 4445) and the Karaite synagogue manuscript of the Latter Prophets, 'written 827 years after the destruc- tion of the Temple,' i. e., 895 A. D., are generally regarded as the oldest. 4 The Text of Zephaniah. from the thought of the first or assault upon the idiom of the second. The vagaries of translators are also all but incalculable. In testing one's retranslation of a reading the dividing line between the necessary use of the Hebrew text for guidance and prejudicial dependence upon it is hard to locate. Because he cannot entirely penetrate the structural difference of the two dead languages, the critic is inclined to find variants where none exist ; and in obvious disagreements he is apt to make too little allowance for the translator whose mental processes he cannot sufficiently follow, and whose knowledge and ability he cannot accurately gauge. Enough has been said to show that the "peculiarities of each translator, the character of his translation, and the knowledge of both languages displayed " by him infor- mation in regard to these matters can of course be gained only by comparisons both within and beyond the limits of the book being studied 1 are determining factors in the evaluation of his version. It is also evident that the large factor of ignorance by which the critic is necessarily handicapped establishes in all doubtful cases a strong presumption in favor of the agreement of the current Hebrew with the source of a version. 2 (C.) The necessity of freeing the text of each version from inner corruptions by tracing it as far back as possible is patent. Neither the Vulgate, Peshitta nor Septuagint can, however, be carried back to the time of their origin, 3 and it is therefore neces- sary to seek such help as early quotations can give. The mutual relation of the versions has an important bearing on their value as witnesses, and consequently the presence or absence of inter- dependence must be established. 1 In the case of the Septuagint these comparisons are much facilitated by the excel- lent concordances available, but with the Peshitta the work is most difficult because of the lack of these helps. Dutripon's Concordantiae Bibliorum Sacrorum Vulgatae Editionis can be used with great advantage together with a Hebrew concordance. 2 Of the three equations Version <: Massoretic Text, Version = Massoretic Text and Version > Massoretic Text, the possibilities of the second must be exhausted before the others can present themselves. Ryssel assumed that the Massoretic Text was preferable to the Septuagint ; Frankel tried always to make the Massoretic Text equal the Septua- gint ; Streane held that the Septuagint was better than the Massoretic Text (cf. Stek- hoven, De Alexaandrijnsche Vertaling van het Dodekaprofeton, p. 121; Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, IV, p. 731 b ). Frankel's results are therefore in so far forth the most dependable. 8 It is not definitely known when the Septuagint and the Peshitta originated ; and although Jerome translated Zephaniah about 393 A. D., the date of the manuscripts used by him is unknown. Introduction. 5 III. The method of procedure adopted in the present inquiry is based on the above considerations. The history of the versions has been separately discussed to locate and establish the best obtainable text of Zephaniah in each. The equivalents, which are obviously due to the character of the translation or to linguistic necessity, and those which must, because of the absence of evi- dence to the contrary, be ascribed to the characteristics or nuances of the translator, have been grouped together, and for the Vul- gate presented in a summary, for the Peshitta and Septuagint exhibited in toto. The question of interdependence has been considered, and such readings as have demanded individual con- sideration have been discussed. Thus the versions have been summoned to show cause why they should be regarded as aids in the criticism of the text of Zephaniah, and not rather as worthy monuments of ancient interpretation. Whether they vindicate their value for criticism or not, they can help to fix the history of the Hebrew text only to the time when the earliest of them was made. Beyond this point, if the text obtained does not commend itself as a true copy of the autograph, external criti- cism by the help of translations must yield to Conjectural Criti- cism. A tree only the top of which is visible above some obstruc- tion illustrates quite accurately what can be known of the text of Zephaniah. The angles of convergence must indicate where the continuation of the trunk is, and where branches and trunk join. The present investigation thus resolves itself into a test of the Hebrew transmission at three points, the exact location of which is unknown. This somewhat anticipatory statement has, it is hoped, outlined with sufficient clearness the general trend of the discussion and vindicated the method employed. IV. The little that the Hebrew text in editions and manu- scripts offers may be at once presented. 1 I 1 rvpm R. JTpSn , cf. Peshitta; pDK R. j'DK, due to the accidental joining of the strokes for i and final j . I 4 iKtf K. (3 MSS.) Dtf, cf. Septua- gint. run R. Kim, error due to the forgetfulness of a scribe who carried his copy in his memory from clause to clause ; n i Kittel's text is used as a basis ; B. = Baer and Delitzsch ; G. =Ginsburg (not his latest edition of 1908); T. = Thiele; W. = Walton's Polyglot; M. = Massoretic Notes; R. = De Rossi's Collations ; K. = Kennicott's Collations as cited by R. 6 The Text of Zephaniah. R. n&O , to avoid possible confusion due to asyndeton. I 6 r\UJ R. rnu, error of vision. I 6 i#p:j G. B. wpi . I 8 ontfn by R. ontyn SD Sy , error of memory, cf. I 4 . I 12 r\^3 R. DV3 , cf. Septu- agint. I 16 D^y R. D^n , error of hearing, frequent with gut- turals. 2 1 itfKnpnn B. nstehpnn. 2 2 p;j T. W. -pnD; D-\DU clause (3) omitted, R. (6 MSS.), K. (8 MSS.), homoioteleuton. 2 4 niEhr B. mtfnr . 2 7 onntf M. orratf (G. does not point this word). 2 9 S U R. DTI, error of memory, cf. I 4 ; OITT W. DN3\ 2 12 '3in R. mn, cf. Peshitta. 2 14 np_ B. np ; ^D3 M. ^D3. 2 16 1T M. iiyKi, odd expression, occurring here only, changed to the usual one. 3 1 runiD G. B. ntnn . 3 2 x 1 ? R. xbi , cf. I 4 ; ^K R. SKI, cf. I 4 . 3 4 D^ma T. o-mia. 3 9 naj; 1 ? R. na^Si , cf. I 4 . 3 10 ^ia rn omitted, R. (IMS.), K. (1 MS.), cf. Septuagint and Peshitta. 3 14 T?jn B. 'iSjji . 3 15 p-K R. ^K, error of memory, cf. I 4 ; <Kvn M. R. K. ^-in; ;n B. G. ^. 3 18 ^y M. R. !j^^ , decision must be arbitrary, cf. Peshitta and the Revised Ver- sion. 3 20 D^ry 1 ? R. M. orrr/7, cf. 3 18 . The printed texts from Walton to Kittel are identical except in a few pointings and matres lectionis. The sporadic readings in the collations are either due to the versions or are explainable as common corruptions in manuscript transmission. Other explana- tions than those given above may be equally satisfactory ; but the true reading is nowhere in doubt, as each variant has the support of only a few manuscripts at most. It is evident that the arche- type of the manuscripts and printed texts here represented has been transmitted with remarkable accuracy. CHAPTEE I. THE VULGATE. 1. The history of Jerome's translation may be divided into three epochs of unequal length, the first and second each cul- minating in an important recension of the text, the third con- tinuing into the present. The first period is one of conflict between it and the Old Latin which it was meant to supersede. The new translation met with violent opposition from many quarters, and its introduction was therefore very gradual. The The Vulgate. 7 fact that the older version persisted and the method by which a text had to be transmitted conspired together to rob Jerome's translation of its purity in this conflict of almost four centuries. It could conquer the older version only by absorbing many of its characteristics, while every copy that was made both transmitted and increased errors. The power of the Church was being more and more concentrated and its influence so extended that it was gradually becoming the dominant force in Western Europe ; but the authority of the^ Bible, which was the foundation on which the whole structure of the ecclesiastical hierarchy was felt to rest, was being dissipated more and more, because hardly two copies of it were in agreement. A supreme papacy needed an official text, and it remained for Charlemagne, who was actuated mainly by liturgical motives, to establish one by means of the recension undertaken at his behest by Alcuin. Theodulf (f 821) made an independent recension at about the same time. The Vulgate which was thus established doubtless differed in many important particulars from Jerome's autograph, but unfortunately very little is known of the history of the text during these centuries of con- flict; and the students of Latin Bible texts are consequently unable with any degree of fulness to trace out the process by which the Carolingian Vulgate was evolved. The verses quoted by the church fathers of the period and the few incidental remarks scattered here and there through the pages of their writings throw but a feeble light into the darkness, which begins to lift only in the last century (VIII). II. Toward the close of this epoch and in the next the Vul- gate takes higher and higher rank. Wherever the Church goes, it goes as the official version of the Word of God, while Latin becomes everywhere the language of worship. The artificial unity of language thus established was a powerful factor in build- ing up an ecclesiastical sovereignty that practically obliterated national boundaries. The Hildebrandian Papacy had been all but impossible without the Vulgate, which had for many centuries, first through use in missionary propaganda, and then in the litur- gies and lectionaries of worship, been welding together the diverse elements of which it was composed. The torch of learn- ing, though it burned most dimly, was borne along by the Church 8 The Text of Zephaniah. alone during this dark period; and the only text-book in most curricula was the Vulgate. Copies were multiplied with great rapidity in the schools and monasteries. Again, as was inevita- ble, the text became so corrupt that many recensions were made. These sporadic attempts could, however, bring about no perma- nent improvement, because manuscripts were so widely distributed that concerted effort was impossible, while the scribes' choice of exemplars to copy was controlled by the flimsiest critical princi- ples, if by any. 1 Even the early printed editions were for the most part set up from such manuscripts as were near at hand. It remained for the Council of Trent to suggest the remedy that the discovery of printing had made possible, and the Sixtine- Clementine edition is the result of a decree passed by that body. With but few exceptions the 8000 extant manuscripts of the Vulgate belong to this period. The text to be found in them is almost uniformly corrupt. 111. The third period of the Vulgate's history begins with the Clementine text of 1592. It is still the official text of the Vatican. Many reprints of it have been made ; but no edition, embracing the results of the latest discoveries and based on approved critical methods, has yet appeared, at least not for the Old Testament. Heyse and Tischendorf's pretentious Biblia Sacra Lat. Vet. Test. Hieronymo interprete (1873) is practically identical with Bagster's cheap reprint. 2 The Latin column of Funk and Wagnall's popular Hexapla Bible (1906) differs only in a few punctuations from the de luxe edition, Biblia Sacra Vul- gata (Critice edidit P. M. Helzenover, 1906), in which at least one misprint has escaped the proofreader. 3 Vercellone's Sacra Vulgatae Editionis Sixti V et Clementis VIII (Rome, 1861) is generally regarded as the best. 4 1 Cf. Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siecles du moyen dge, Paris, 1893, pp. 329, 330. 2 The differences between them in Zephaniah are as follows, Bagster's text being the first cited; I 3 " 5 Coelicaeli, 2 2<a Domini Dm, 2 6 speciosamSpeciosam, 3 14 lauda, lauda, jubila, jubila, corde, corde. 3 1 ' nolitimere noli timer e. 3 ig fuerat,fuerat. 3 3" Adijcies for adjicies. * Now and again more or less extensive excursions have been made into the field of the textual criticism of the Vulgate Old Testament, but on the whole it is still an unex- plored domain. Berger, in the introduction to the work already mentioned, gives a very satisfactory sketch of what has been accomplished both in the Old and New Testaments. The book itself takes rank as a classic in Vulgate studies and contains a complete bibli- ography. The Vulgate. 9 IV. The Vulgate manuscripts must be considered in their geographical distribution; for three main types of texts, kept more or less distinct from each other by natural boundaries, are clearly defined. Ireland and Spain because of their location both remained for the most part isolated from the rest of Europe. The Vulgate text, which was early taken to these countries, was thus kept separated from the main continental current of trans- mission. As the purity of a text is, generally speaking, inversely proportioned to the number of times it has been copied, the rate of corruption of manuscripts was much less rapid in Ireland and Spain than elsewhere. But Irish missionaries and Irish monks kept carrying the Irish text to different parts of the continent ; and in the first year of the ninth century the Alcuin recension brought the Irish type of text back into the main stream of trans- mission, for he is known to have sent to York for manuscripts to be used in his work. 1 Theodulf seems to have been familiar with the manuscripts in use in the South of France, and his collations may have brought into the main current many characteristic Spanish readings. In the Clementine text these three types are blended, for manuscripts from many places were collated for it. As compared with each other, the pure Irish type is much better than the pure Spanish. The known national characteristics of the two peoples lead to the inference that Irish manuscripts would be less ornamental and more accurate, and this is confirmed by all that is known of the types. V. It is clear from what has been said that a comparison of manuscripts of these three types will yield the earliest obtainable text. The Codex Amiatinus is earlier than the Alcuin recension, 2 and the Codex Toletanus antedates Theodulf. 3 For the conti- nental type, in lieu of anything better, the Clementine must needs be used. The results of such a comparison for Zephaniah are as follows: 4 I 1 Sophoniam filium Chusi. A. Sofoniam filium Cusi 1 Jaffe, Monumenta Alcuiniana, p. 346. 3 A very interesting account of how the age of this, the best of the Irish manuscripts, was finally fixed is to be found in Studio, Biblica et Ecclesiastica, Oxford, 1890, II, pp. 273 ff. 3 A description of these manuscripts may be found in Berger's Histoire de la Vulgate^ etc., pp. 37 f. and pp. 12 f. * The Clementine text is used as a basis. A=Amiatinus; T.=Toletanus. The collation of A. is taken from Heyse and Tischendorf s apparatus ; that of T. from Migne's Patrolo- ffia Latina, XXIX, p. 1027. Italics have been used to indicate the readings which deserve the preference. Where more definite criteria fail (cf. 2 14 ), It is necessary, since relative values have not yet been fixed, to decide by simple majority rule. Readings that are evidently corruptions have been marked as such. 10 The Text of Zephaniah. (Jerome is known to have aspirated the Begadkefat ; cf . Lagarde's Onomastica, index), filii Godaliae A. T. filium Godaliae (this is perhaps an Old Latin reading as it agrees with the Septuagint). ftlii Amariae filii T. filium Amariae filium (the sense demands the genitive). Hheciae A. Ezechiae (p was not aspirated by Jerome in transliteration ; cf . Lagarde's Onomastica, index) . Amon A. Ammon. Judae T. Juda. I 3 volatilia A. T. volatile. I 6 super omnem A. omnem. omnem .... qui ingreditur T. omnes .... qui ingrediuntur. I 11 Pilae T. filiae (corruption). disperierunt T. dispergerunt (corruption). I^faecibus A. feci- bus (spelled foecibus, Jer. 48"; the spelling fex is allowable; cf. Harper ' Latin Dictionary , p. 744). faciet A. faciat (corruption). I 14 Juxta est A. Juxta et (corruption). I 17 corpora A. corpus. I 18 faciet cunctis T. faciet Dominus cunctis (interpretative addi- tion, suggested perhaps by I 12 ). 2 2 super vos ira A. ira; ante- quam clause (2) omitted T. (This may be Old Latin, cf. p. 31.) Indignationis A. furoris (in the Liber de Divinis Scripturis sive Speculum, XVI, De Libro Sophoniae, this same variant occurs in an evident Vulgate text, and therefore the reading of A. is to be adopted). 2 s qui T. quia (corruption). 2 B Philisthino- rum A. Philistinorum (cf. I 1 ), inhabitator T. habitator. 2' pecorum T. ovium (this may be Old Latin). 2 7 remanserit A. manserit. 2 H quae T. qui (corruption). 2 9 Gomorrha A. Gomorra (cf. I 1 ), in aeternum T. in sempiternum (this may be another Old Latin reading), eoset . . . . illos A. T. illos . . . . illos (the agreement of A. and T. is hard to explain unless they represent the Old Latin ; the Septuagint has avroi>s K<U avrovs, thus the agreement with it is only partial). 2 11 viri A. T. vir (in a quotation, evidently made from memory, Augustine has vir with adorabit. He seems to have changed the number of the verb to turn this Hebraism into intelligible Latin, whereas the Clemen- tine text has changed the number of the noun). 2 12 et vos Aethi- opes T. et vos et Aethiopes (dittography). 2 13 Speciosam A. T. Speciosa (Jerome's translation of Nineveh is hardly intelligible in Latin, and the unusual fern. sing. adj. was early corrupted into the ordinary neut. plu.). 2 14 quoniam T. quum. 2 15 civitas glori- osa A. gloriosa civitas (accidental inversion). 3 2 confisa T. confixa (corruption), appropinquavit A. adpropiavit (corrup- The Vulgate. 11 tion). 3 5 mane mane A. T. mane (homoioteleutonic omission; or perhaps better, the Hebraism was early removed), lucem A. luce (corruption). 3 6 disperdidi A. disperdi, T. disperdit (cor- ruptions), neque ullo A. nee ullo. 3 7 dixi attamen A. dixit tamen (corruption), suscipies T. suscipe (as timebis was read, suscipe must be a corruption). 3 s et effundam A. T. ut effun- dam (the reading ut may be accepted, not only because it is sup- ported by these two ancient manuscripts, but because it brings out the meaning of the Hebrew better; per se a corruption is possible either way ; the Old Latin has et). indignationem T. oninem indignationem (dittography due to following omnem). 3 9 invocent A. T. vocent. 3 13 mendacium et non T. menda- cium non (accidental omission). 3 H Jubila A. Jubilate (inter- pretative with Israel in distributive sense). 3 17 salvabit T. salvabit te (perhaps due to Old Latin influence; cf. Septuagint). exsultabit T. et exsultabit (cf. Septuagint; more likely, how- ever, an ordinary sporadic reading). 3 19 earn quae ejecta fuerat T. ea quae electa fuerant (corruption). 3 20 tempore quo con- gregabo T. tempore congregabo (monograph y). VI. Since the distance of the text now established from the autograph must still be measured in centuries, many Old Latin elements that crept in after Jerome had finished his work may be contained in it. The Spanish text as a whole is known to betray an especially strong Old Latin influence, and perhaps the syno- nyms of T. in 2 7> 8 , as well as other readings peculiar to this man- uscript (3 17 ), come from this source. The Old Latin of Zephaniah has not survived, 1 and consequently it cannot be directly deter- mined how much of it, if anything, has passed into the Vulgate either originally through Jerome himself, who sometimes con- sciously, and perhaps more often unconsciously, incorporated its readings, or through subsequent confusions due to their transmis- sion side by side. In the belief that they would be of interest, and, perhaps, even of importance in this connection, a collection of quotations from the early Latin Fathers was made. 3 It was 1 There seems to be a manuscript in the Vatican which contains the last eight verses of the Old Latin of Zephaniah ; cf. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 97. 2 After the collection was completed it was found that a similar collection had already been published ; cf. Journal of Theological Studies, 1903, p. 76. The results of these two independent examinations are in substantial agreement. 12 The Text of Zephaniah. rather disappointing to find that only a few of the Latin ecclesi- astical writers before the middle of the fifth century were cited in the critical editions of their works as having referred to Zephaniah. In Tertullian only an allusion to the dies irae was to be found. A single clause occurs in Nolan us: l llb JExterminati sunt omnes qui exultati fuerant auro et argento. Vulgate: disperierunt omnes involuti argento. This can be regarded only as an expansive allusion to Zephaniah. Cassian quotes a clause, the thought of which is of such a nature that divergence in its expression is practically impossible except in particles : I 12b Qui dicunt in cordibus suis, non faciet Dominus bene, sed neque faciet male. Vulgate: Qui dicunt in cordibus suis : non faciet bene domi- nus, et non faciet male. More than a third of the book can be recovered from Cyprian, Augustine and Tyconius. 1 For the purposes of comparison that which seems to be genuine Old Latin has been here placed between the Vulgate and the Septuagint. 1 The Liber de Divinis Scripturis sive Speculum is here regarded as the work of Augustine, to whom it is attributed by its editor for the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasti- corum Latinorum, Vienna Academy. It is, however, by many attributed to an unknown author. Augustine's capriciousness in quotation is abundantly sustained. His text agrees with that of the Vulgate in five passages, I4h.7a- nb t 2 i-3, ssa-ia-isa. F Or 21.3 and 312 he has also quoted the Old Latin. His two quotations of 2 11 are so mingled that he must have quoted from memory in both cases. Augustine (1). Praevalebit dominus adversus eos et exterminabit omnes deos gen- tium terrae, et adorabunt eum unus quisque de loco suo, omnes insulae gentium. Augustine (2). Horribilis Dominus super eos, et exterminabit omnes deos terrae, et adorabit eum vir de loco suo, omnes insulae gentium. Vulgate. Horribilis Dominus super eos, et attenuabit omnes deos terrae; et adora- bunt eum vir de loco suo, omnes insulae Gentium. The Vulgate. 13 VULGATE. (I 8 ' 3 ) Congregans congre- gabo omnia a facie terrae, dicit Dominus : Congregans hoininem, et pecus, congre- gans volatile eoeli, et pisces marls : et disperdam homines a facie terrae (P) Silete a facie Domini Dei : quia juxta est dies Domini quia praeparavit Dominus hostiam, sanctificavit voca- tos suos. (l llb ) Disperierunt omnes i n v o 1 u t i argento. (list- i4a) Aedificabunt domos, etnon habitabunt: et planta- bunt vineas, et non bibent vinum earum. Juxta est dies Domini magnus. (I 14b - 16 ) Vox die! Domini amara, tribula- bitur ibi fortis. Dies irae dies ilia, dies tribulationis et angustiae, dies calamitatis et miseriae, dies tenebrarum et caliginis, dies nebulae et turbinis, dies tubae et clan- goris super civitates munitas, et super angulos excelsos. (Ii7b- isa) Et effundetur san- guis eorum sicut humus, et corpora eorum sicut stercora. Sed et argentum eorum, et aurum eorum non poterit liberare eos in die irae Dom- ini. (2i-8) Convenite, congre- gamini gens non amabilis: Priusquam pariat jussio quasi pulverem transeuntem diem, antequam veniat super vos dies furoris Dom- ini. Quaerite Dominum, OLD LATIN. (!, Cyprian) Defectlone deticiat a facie terrae dicit Dominus, deficiat homo et pecudes, deficiant volucres caeli et pisces marls et au- feram iniquos a facie terrae. (V, Cyprian) Metuite a facie Domini Dei, quoniam prope est dies ejus; quia paravit Dominus sacriflcium suum, sanctificavit vocatos suos. (l llb , Speculum) Disperierunt omnes qui exaltantur in argento [et auro]. (lb. ", Cyprian) Aedificabunt domos et non inhabitabunt, et insti- tuent vineas et non bibent vinum earum, quia prope est dies Domini, (li^-is, Specu- lum) Vox diei domini amara et dura constituta, dies po- tens, dies iracundiae dies ille, dies tribulationis et necessi- tatis, dies infelicitatis et ex- terminii, dies tenebrarum et tempestatis, dies nubis et cali- ginis, dies tubae et clamoris super civitates firmas et super angulos excelsos. (I 17b> 18a , Speculum) Et effundam san- guinem eorum sicut limum, et carnes eorum sicut stercus 1 bourn et argentum et aurum eorum non poterit liberare eos in die irae domini. (2i-3, Speculum) Convenite et congregamini populus in- disciplinatus, priusquam emciamini sicut flos prae- teriens priusquam super- veniat super vos dies iracun- diae domini. Quaerite dom- SEPTUAGINT. 1 stercora in another place. dirb Trpoff&irov rijs 7775, Kvpios. 'ExXiTT^Tw avdp(t)iros Kal KTT?)Vr) ^XlTT^TW TO. 7TC- Teivd TOV ovpavov Kal ol TTJS da\d<ro"rjs ' . . . . Kal TOVS dv6fwvs dirb irpo- XT)? yijs .... (!') atrb irpoffdirov TOU 0eou ' 5i6rt ^771)5 17 -rj/ji^pa TOU Kup/ou, 8ri ^r Kf TOI>S K\r}TOVS O.VTOJ. (l llb ) .... (i}\o0pti0Trjffa,v Trdvres ol dpyvpiy. (Ii3b.i4a) Kal ov /j. avrais ' Kal KaTa<pVTev<rov<riv d/LtTreXtDvas, Kal ov ^ irluffi. TOV olvov auTwv. "Ort ^771)$ 17 Wpa Kvpiov .... (Ii4b.i6) (fxavTj ij^pas Kvpiov iriKpa Kal ffK\-rjpa rtraKTai. Avvarij 6pyi)S, i) ^X^ews Kal awplas Kal d<pavifffJU)v, GKOTOVS Kal yv6<pov, ve0A7;s Kal oplx^*}*, (T(X7ri77os Kal Kpav- 7^s lirl ras 7r6Xets TCLS 6xv- /oas, Kal irl ras ywvlas ras %ee? rb a?/xa avr&v Kal rds ffdpKas avruv a>s /86Xj3tra. Kai rb dpyvpiov avruv Kal rb xP vff tov avrGiv ov IJ.T] dtivyrai %\t(rdai av~ TOVS tv ijiJ-tpa dpyijs Kvpiov. (2 1 * 8 ) Svvdx^re, 6-rjTe rb fdvos rb irpb TOV yevtffdat v/j.as Trpb TOV yfdpav dv/Jiov Kvpiov. (Tare Tbv Kvpiov irdvTes Tairei- 14 The Text of Zephaniah. VULGATE. omnes mansueti terrae, qui judicium ejus estis operati: quaerite just urn, quaerite mansuetum : si quomodo ab- scondamini in die furoris Domini. (2i3_35a)Et extendet manum suam super Aquilo- nem, et ponet Specio- sam in solitudinem, et in invium, et quasi desertum. Et accubabunt in medio ejus greges, omnes bestiae Gen- tium : et onocrotalus, et eri- cius in liminibus ejus mora- buntur : vox cantantis in fenestra, corvus in superlimi- n a r i, quoniam attenuabo robur ejus. Haec est civitas gloriosa habitans in confiden- tia: quae dicebat in corde suo: Ego sum, et extra me nonest aliaamplius: quomodo facta est in desertum cubile bestiae? omnis, qui transit per earn, sibilabit, et move- bit manum suam. Vae pro- vocatrix, et redempta civitas, columba. Nonaudivitvocem, et non suscepit disciplinam : in Domino non est confisa, ad Deum suum non appropin- quavit. Principes ejus in medio ejus quasi leones rugi- entes : judices ejus lupi ves- pere, non relinquebant in mane. Prophetae ej us vesani , viri infideles : sacerdotes ejus polluerunt sanctum, injuste egerunt contra legem. Domi- nus Justus in medio ejus non faciet iniquitatem. (38) expecta me, dicit Dominus, in die resurrectionis meae in futurum, quia judicium meum ut congregem Gentes et colli- gam regna : ut effundam su- per eos indignationem meam, OLD LATIN. inum omnes humiles terrae, aequitatem operamini, et justitiam quaerite, et respon- dete ea , ut protegamini in die irae domini. (2i3-35a ) Tycon- ius) Et extendet manum suam in Aquilonem et ponet illam Nineve exterminium sine aqua in desertum, et pascen- tur in medio ejus greges omnes bestiae terrae. et chameleontes, et hericii in laquearibus ejus cubabunt, et bestiae vocem dabunt in fos- sis ejus, et corvi in partis ejus quoniam cedrus altitude ejus. Civitas contemnens quae habitat in spe, quae dicit in corde suo Ego sum, et non est post me adhuc ! Quomodo facta est in exterminium pas- cua bestiarum ! Omnis qui transit per illam sibilabit, et movebit manus suas. O in- lustris et redempta civitas, columba quae non audit vo- cem, non recepit disciplinam. in Domino non est connsa, et ad Deum suum non adpro- pinquavit, principes ejus in ea ut leones frementes, judices ejus ut lupi Arabiae non re- linquebant in mane, profetae ejus spiritu elati viri contemp- tores, sacerdotes ejus profa- nant sacra e t conscelerant legem. Dominus autem Justus in medio ejus, non faciet in- justum. 1 SEPTUAGINT. vol 7775, Kplfjia e"p7ife<r0e, 1 Cyprian's exegesis of 3 1 ' 2 shows the substantial agree- ment of his text with that ofTyconius : C o 1 u m b a non exaudit vocem, id est, praeclara et redempta civitas non recipit doctrinam et in Dominum fidens non fuit. In the Speculum a clause of 3 4 is quoted: Sacer- dotes ejus contaminant sancta et reprobant legem. This is perhaps a quotation from memory, as Tyconius has a reputation for accuracy, es- pecially in long passages. diroKpivecrde avrd, oirus <r/ce- iracrQiJTe ev 77/^/39 6/37775 Ku- plov. (2 13 3 5a ) Kal eKTevei TT> Xeipa avrov eirl fiopbav .... Kal #77<rei TTJV Nti/eu^ els d(pat>i<r fJJbv avvdpov, ws eprj/MV. Kal ve^ffovraL ev jtteVy avrijs TTofyma, Kal travra ra Orjpla TTJS 7775, Kal x a / avrijs dypla Kal tv TOIS rb avd<TTT}fj.a 77 7r6Xis 77 <pav\iffTpia, 77 KaroiKOVffa tir" 1 ATT/SI, 77 \tyovffa tv KapStq. ai/TTjs, 'E7w ftfu, Kal OVK ftrri ner" 1 ifj^ en * TTcDs tyevfiOf) eis a<t>avLffpJbv, vo/J-rj dfiplwv; iras 6 diairopev6/j,vos Si 1 avrrjs <rv- ptet, Kal Kivfoei ras xetpas avrov. "ft 77 eirt<pav7]S Kal diro\\VTpufJi.t}>r) 7r6Xts, 77 TTC- purrepa OVK elff^Kovffe <p<i)i>r)S ' O$K fS^aro iratSelav, iri rf Kvplfp OVK eTrcTrot^et, Kai irpbs rbv Qebv avrijs OVK tfyyicrev. 01 apxovres avrijs ws \VKOL TIJS 'Apa/3/as, ovx vireKlirovTO els TO irput 01 irpotpTjrat avTijs irvVfj.aTo<f>6poi, avdpes Kara(ppovT]Tai ' iepeis avrrjs f3ef3-r)\ov<ri rd ayia, Kal dffe- (Bovo't vbfjkov. '0 d Kvpios OLKCLLOS v jn&rtjj auTT^s, Kal ov 'l aOLKOV ' (3 8 ) . . . ^7ei Kfyuos, ds dvaffrdcreibs pov els ftapTvpiov ' 5t6 rb Kpl/ma /JLOV els o-vvaywyds 0vu>v, TOV elff- dej-a<r6ai j3a<rtXe?s, TOV The Vulgate. 15 VULGATE. OLD LATIN. SEPTUAGINT. ..... (3- 13a ) Quia tune red- (8, Cyprian) Expecta me, & afoote ira<rav dpyijv 6vfwv dam populis labium electum, dicit Dominus, in die resur- /gg.iaax "Q Tt ut vocent omnes in nomine rectionis meae in testimon- Domini, et serviant ei humero ium ; quoniam j u d i c i u m *f^W* tirl Xaoi/j uno. Ultra flumina .... de- meum ad congregationes gen- ffo-v ets yeveav ayrT/s, TOV iri- ferent munus mini. In die tium, ut excipiam reges et /taXear^at Train-as TO 6vofML ilia non confunderis super effundam super eos iram K . - 5ouXej j etJ/ aljT /j cunctis adinventionibus tuis, meam. (3-is, Augustine) ' , , quibus praevaricata es in me : Transvertam in populos lin- U7rd &"* v ? " a - E/c 7re / ) a TW " quia tune auferam de medio guam et progenies ej us, ut in- iroTa/j-iov 'At0w7r/as 6i<rov<ri tui magniloquos superbiae vocent omnes nomen Domini 0v<rlas (ju>i. 'Ej> tuae et non adjicies exaltari et ser-viant ei sub jugo uno ; a ^ amplius in montesancto meo. finibus flummum Aethiopae , Et derelinquam in medio tui adferenthostiasmihi. Inillo 7ra " TW J' populum pauperem, et ege- die confunderis ex omnibus ffov i & v fyrtpyffas ets fyt num : et sperabunt in nomine adinventionibus tuis, quas 3rt rbre irepieXu airb <rov rd Domini. Reliquiae Israel. . . inpie egisti in me ; quia tune 0auX Z(ruoTa rm CSecis aov auferam abs te pravitates in- n ~ juriae tuae ; et jam non ad- ** OVK Ti ** TOV jicies, ut magnificeris super fJya\avxi)<rai tirl rb 6pos montem sanctum meum, et S^tbv /*ou. Kai subrelinquam in te populum mansuetum et humilem ; et verebantur a nomine Domini, "*", "* qui reliqui fuerint Israel. ^T^ TOU 6v6fj.affTos Kupiou Oi KaraXouroi TOU In these verses positive proof of Jerome's use of the Old Latin is not to be found. There are a few agreements, but these may well be accidental. 1 The remarkable differences, even in places where greater similarity would hardly have been surprising because of the nature of the ideas to be expressed, seem to pre- clude literary dependence on Jerome's part; for this could be established only by more striking agreements in more character- istic passages. The so-called Itala Question does not present itself in connection with these quotations. In only one case (3 1 * 2 ) are the same verses recovered from two sources. In one of these it is in an interpretation and not in a quotation, and this may well account for the slight differences found. It may now be stated positively that the text already established must be con- sidered as the purest text of the Vulgate of Zephaniah that can be obtained. 1 Cf. I 7 sanctificavit vocatos suos; I 18 angulos excelsos; 2 1 convenite, congregamini; 3* in Domini non est confisa, (et) ad Deum suum non (ap) adpropinquavit. 16 The Text of Zephaniah. VII. No more emphatic proof of the high esteem in which the Vulgate is still held could be offered than the fact that modern Catholic scholarship is about to engage in the stupendous task of a new revision which will, when completed, be the crown- ing tribute of Latin Christianity to St. Jerome. 1 Doubtless the choiceness of its diction and the majesty of its style have been largely instrumental in raising this version to the commanding position which it has so long occupied in the Catholic Church ; but it could not continue to usurp the place of the inspired Hebrew Old Testament so entirely, if its general faithfulness as a translation were not beyond dispute. In Textual Criticism, however, accuracy in detail is the measure of a version's value; and entire consistency in translation, even to the complete subor- dination of all matters of style and diction, is the translator's chief virtue. The Latin text of Zephaniah reveals frequent con- flict beween the careful translator and the literary artist. Occa- sionally Jerome's faithfulness to the Hebrew leads him to do vio- lence to the Latin idiom (l u congregans congregabo ; 2 11 adora- bunt eum vir de loco suo). More frequently he is satisfied with an ad sensum rendering from which the reading of his exemplar could never be recovered without the help of the Massoretic Text (2 T * qui remanserit de domo Juda=mMV JV3 rriKiy; ibi= orp 1 ?;; ; 3* injuste egerunt cowra=iDon; 3 6 dum non est qui transeat= "131 y ll ?3D; non remanente viro, neque ullo habitatore=r#ft ETK sl ?3D atfr ; 3 7 omnia, in quibus visitavi eam=rrS;rrnpJD "i^xSD; 3 17 fortis^ ipse salvabit=yw 113J). His translations of participles prove him a firm believer in the principle of varietas delectat (participle = participle I 4 ; participle with article = participle I 12 ; participle with article = relative clause I 12 ; participle = relative clause 3 8 ; participle = adjective 3 s ; participle = noun I 18 ; parti- ciple = finite independent verb I 14 ; cf. further 2 14 , where finite independent verb = participle, and I 4 , 1", 2 5 - 6 , 3 8 , where 3tfr is in each case differently rendered). Connectives he supplies or omits quite arbitrarily (I 11 , I 18 , 2 1 , 3 5 ' 6 , 3 9 ), and occasionally he inserts the copula (1 s , 2 10 , 2 15 eveniet). Prepositions are for the The work is to be directed by the Rt. Rev. F. A. Gasquet, Abbot President of the English Benedictines. The many uncatalogued cathedral libraries of Spain and Italy are being systematically overhauled, and special copies of the Clementine text are to be printed to aid in the work of collation. The Vulgate. 17 sake of variety or interpretatively supplied, omitted or changed (2 a , 2% 3 3 , 3 7 , 3 16 ; in I 8 - 4 he seems to distinguish between Sj?D and |D, the former being rendered by ab, the latter by de). He sometimes shows a very accurate knowledge of Hebrew syntax (I 8 et erit visitabo^mpQi rrni , the Septuagint has Kai rrcH /cat cKSiKijo-w ; 3 7 diluculo surgentes corruperunt= irrniyn iD'Diyn). In matters of vocabulary he is, however, not a safe guide. riDT destroy and StfJ pollute were unknown to him. Speciosam in 2 13 is due rather to his failure to understand the passage than to his fondness for translating proper names (cf. l n , Pilae) ; at any rate his etymology of Nineveh, if he read the word, is far-fetched. 1 The richness of his Latin vocabulary is of course largely responsible for his lack of consistency in the choice of words. For almost every Hebrew word to be translated there were many Latin equivalents and near-equivalents at his command. pS is rendered in the Vulgate Old Testament by morari (2 14 ), com- morari, demorari, man ere, remanere, permanere, quiescere, requi- escere, habitare, esse, resider effing ere tentoria, dormire (cf. further * 49 13 , 59 16 , Job 27 7 , II Sam. 12 16 for less accurate or mistaken ren- derings). *\D33=porrigere, par are, concupiscere, desiderium esse, amabilis (2 1 ). Within Zephaniah the same root is sometimes trans- lated by different words (2 16 , 3", 3 14 ; 3 7 , 3 11 ). In I 3 - 4 'ivon is ren- dered by disperdam ; and mjj in I 11 is very properly rendered by dis- perire, which is the regular passive of disperdere ; 3 in 2 5 , however, disperdere is the translation of T3KH, which in 2 IS is rendered by perdere, and in 2 7 mDJ is translated by perire. Pertinent illus- trations might be multiplied almost indefinitely, but enough have been given to indicate Jerome's general habit of translation and to show how wide are the limits within which the equation, Vul- gate equals Massoretic Text, may with entire safety be allowed to obtain. The readings that demand more special consideration will be noted later. For the rest of the text it can be shown on the basis of the above analysis either that the present Hebrew and the Vulgate agree, or that proof of their disagreement is impossible. His derivation of Nineveh is perhaps based on some Midrashic interpretation. He has connected mrj with n*O or HU, cf. Jer. 6" and Zeph. 2. * Cf. Harper's Latin Dictionary (Lewis and Short), p. 592. 18 The Text of Zephaniah. CHAPTEE II. THE PESHITTA. I. There is no apparatus criticus for the study of the Peshitta text of Zephaniah, and with the exception of Ceriani's photolithographic reproduction of the Cod. Ambrosianus no man- uscripts are available. As far as can be gathered from the scattered and incidental notices of various writers, there are only a few old Syriac manuscripts containing this book in the libraries of Europe. That there are none in Berlin rests on the authority of Strack. In England those earlier than the seventeenth century are British Museum Add. 14,432, 14,443 and 14,468 (I 1 ' 6 ) ; Cam- bridge L. e. 2.4, Uni. Add. 1965, Buchanan Bible. In lieu of manuscripts the printed editions, of which there are five, must be used to establish a critical apparatus for the text. Of these the Syriac text of the Paris Polyglot is the earliest (1645). This was reproduced in Walton's London Polyglot (1657), and again, but without vowels, by Lee for the British Bible Society (1821). A Syriac Bible was printed in Nestorian characters and with Nestorian vowels by American missionaries in Urmiah (1852). More recently the Dominicans of Mosul have printed a text (1887-1892). It is difficult to determine the critical value of these editions. P. (=Paris Polyglot), W. (= Walton's Polyglot) and L. (=Lee's text), are generally allowed to count as only one witness, because their differences are either misprints or improve- ments in spelling. That L. was used for U. (=Urmiah) can be deduced from the text itself. 1 It has not as yet been made certain whether M. (=Mosul) has independent value or not, because those competent to judge seem to have been unable to obtain copies. 2 The text of P. is known to have been taken from the manuscript Syriaque 6 of the JBibliotheque Nationale, which dates from the seventeenth century. As a manuscript it has no special merit, 1 Cf. Nestle, Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, IV, p. 651 a . 2 Cf. Barnes, An Apparatus Criticus to Chronicles in the Peshitta Version, with a Discussion of the Value of the Codex Ambrosianus, Introduction. The Peshitta. 19 and it seems to have been used only because it was convenient for the printers to handle. The sixth tome of Walton's Polyglot (pp. 19 if.) contains a collation of two manuscripts, Usher and Pocock. In the Prolegomena to this work (p. 165 2 ) it is stated that Us. ( = Usher) was copied "from a codex of the Patriarch of Antioch," who is the head of the Maronites. In all likelihood this was an old codex not on sale. According to Barnes (Journal of Theological Studies, II, p. 186), Lee had access to the Bu- chanan Bible and to Cambridge L. e. 2.4, and it may therefore be assumed that he did not find in them any readings which seemed to warrant a departure from the London Polyglot. These as well as Cod. Ambrosianus are Jacobite manuscripts. If manuscripts were used for U. and M., they were undoubtedly of Nestorian and Jacobite or Maronite character respectively. 1 These few facts and probabilities, in which practically all that is known about the origin of these texts is comprised, can in themselves hardly support any positive conclusions ; but in the light of the history of Syrian Christianity they are of paramount importance for the textual criticism of the Peshitta. II. The Peshitta version owes its survival largely to the Christological heresies of the fifth century. After the Council of Ephesus (431) the followers of Nestorius were so bitterly persecuted by their Monophysitic opponents that the heresy taught by him was speedily stamped out in Italy and Greece. The Oriental Nestorians, over whom the ecclesiastical control of Rome and Constantinople was but feeble because they were sep- arated both by language and character from the Christians of Europe, maintained their peculiar tenets despite all opposition, and Syria became virtually a theological battle-ground. The Monophy sites were victorious because of the powerful advocacy of Anastasius and Zeno, and they succeeded in driving the Nes- torians more deeply into the territory of the Sassanian kings of Persia. Since the Gospel was first preached within their king- dom, these kings had watched with suspicion the "aliens who had embraced the religion, and who might favor the cause, of the hereditary foes of their realm;" 2 but now that they were 1 Rahlfs made the assumption that Nestorian manuscripts were used by the American missionaries (Beltrage zur Textkritik der Peschita, Z.A.T.W., 1889, pp. 161 ff.). a Cf. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, XLVII. 20 The Text of Zephaniah. rebels against the Roman Empire and fugitives from Roman jurisdiction, they were eagerly welcomed, and in the year 483 or 484 1 at the Synod of Beth Lapat Nestorianism was officially adopted as its confession of faith by the Christian Church in Persia. The Monophysites were themselves anathematized by the Council of Chalcedon (451), and the same influence of lan- guage and character operated to perpetuate this heresy in Syria. They were in turn harassed by the Nestorians, for whom apparent defeat had become a triumph through the powerful allies gained, and their ecclesiastical organization was accomplished only with the greatest difficulty by Jacob Baradaeus, from whom they obtained the name of Jacobites. The odium theologicum thus kindled between Nestorians and Jacobites has never ceased to burn. Toward the close of the following century many of the Syrian Christians who had escaped both Nestorianism and Mono- physitism and who were called Melkites because of their loyalty to the Empire, were wrecked on the rock of Monothelitism ; and a third sect resulted whose members are called Maronites. They never became entirely free from Roman influence and were finally brought back into the Church, when certain minor concessions of ritual and clerical privilege were made by the Papacy. III. The Peshitta remained the official version of Scripture for these three sects ; and though Arabic or Persian became their vernacular after the Mohammedan conquest, the Bible con- tinued to be read in the sacred language. Their common accept- ance of the Peshitta in spite of their lasting hostility to each other amounts to proof positive that the Peshitta antedates the schisms which separated them; and the schisms, in that they would tend to produce three distinct lines of transmission, give to Textual Criticism its only means of determining an ancient text. (A.) Where all the authorities agree, it may be safely affirmed that the text is older than the last quarter of the fifth century. (B.) Am. (^Ambrosianus) and Us. together establish the West-Syrian reading, for one is Jacobite and the other Maronite. (C.) If U. contains any distinctly Nestorian readings, they ought to be easily recognized because they stand alone. 1 Cf. Noldeke, Aufsatze zur persischen Geschichte, p. 107. The Peshitta. 21 (D.) In the absence of more positive criteria U. may be allowed to decide between West-Syrian readings. These vaguely general and by no means absolute rules, 1 aided here and there by the scholia of Bar Hebraeus and the quotations of other writers, must in the absence of anything better fix this important text for the entire fifteen centuries or more of its existence. Though Assemani, himself a Syrian, has written a tome of 950 pages concerning Syrian Christianity, 2 he throws little light on the history of the Peshitta as such ; and little more is now known of its origin 3 than Theodore of Mopsuestia seems to have known when he wrote : fjpfjirivcvTai 8e ravra ets fJ^v rrjv r<av Svpon/ Trap' OTOV S^TTOTC, ovBe yap lyvaKTTai /u-e'xpt TT/S riy/xepov ocrns -TTOTC OVTOS eoTtv. 4 IV. The following is a collation of P., W., Us., Po. ( = Pococl$), U., M. and Am. with L. : I 8 * ^ * * ^\ Am. I 9 * .cov^Jf^o p o> .oouaJj^ao . I 11 * . ^V ft ^ Ain "" ^" * A . I 11 * Am. *oZ ? . I 12 P Am. Us.* P?. I 15 * l?co ?? _Am. fecofo. I 15 * |J^I P. P^l. I 17 * U 1*1 -Am. UJ] ^1^. I 18 * gold and silver Am. silver and gold. 2 2 * Pr^o(3) U. M. Pr^ . 2 9 - 10 - 13 - 14 - 16 * "^-4.1^0-.] U". M. omit both alephs, Am. omits the first. 2 9 * U^ Am. tt^X 2 n * ^X^l U. ^X 1 !?. 2 12 Am. v cJJ additional. (3 7 - 8 break in Am.) 3 11 ^-r- Am. U.* U. M. *-^. 3 17 * h^r^ M. ^r^. 3 19 -M. U. Us. Am. * v ociZZoi^ ? \i] oi^as. 320 jy[ jj. Us. Am. add at the beginning of the verse * ^a-^-l 001 U^^ ouo . 3' V OOUJL^^_U. M. Am. * v ooi-J.^ . The readings to be preferred according to the rules formulated above have been starred. With one exception the variants are of no importance, consisting either in omissions and additions of , ?, and ^, or in differences of spelling. In 3 19 - 20 the collation gives a reading which commends itself as original. The text obtained from these different lines of transmission contains inner-Syraic corruptions, and these must therefore be very early. In I 9 Po. 1 The rules here formulated agree substantially with those given by Rahlfs (Z.A.T.W., 1889, pp. 161-210) , though much less positively stated. 2 Assemani, Bibliolheca Orientalis, IV. 3 Cf. Berg, The Influence of the Septuagint upon the Peshitta Psalter, New York, 1895. Cf. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, LXVI, p. 241. 22 The Text of Zephaniah. has corrected one of these by reading sf 01 ^i^ for ^pqi * i, SP . The others are l^*- for i^^ (2 11 ) ; IH^ (pointed Ij^ in W.) for 1-=^ (2 14 , cf. Brockelmanrf s Lexicon Syriacum, p. 258 b , and Ez. 17 3.-^. ^ , for )^oi (3 ? c f. i"). V. Bar Hebraeus cites Zephaniah in the following verses, quoting at most a clause though generally only a word: 1 I 1 , I 2 , I 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 , I 8 , I 10 ' 10 , I 11 - 11 , I 17 , 2 7 - 7 , 2 12 , 2 13 , 2 14 - 14 ," 2 15 , 3 4 , 3 5 , 3 9 , 3 15 . In I 11 one of the three codices collated by Moritz agrees with Am. in omitting the final o of cjoZ? . J n 2 7 , where the editions all have ] *v>i^> ? Bar Hebraeus seems to have read i-^- i-aurs (i n ripa maris). This may be an explanation of the geographical location of Askalon; some connection with the S^n of 2 5 - 6 ' 7 is not unlikely. The remainder of his citations agree with the text of the editions. The scholia have no textual value, being either on the vocaliza- tion of words or of an interpretative character. Quotations of Zephaniah must be exceedingly rare in early Syriac religious literature, because a patient search of many indices and footnotes yielded only a few allusions to Zephaniah by Ephraem Syrus in his poetical Homilies, and two partial quotations of the same verse (3 9 ) by Aphraates, in which he does not differ from the accepted text. 2 VI. The translation of Zephaniah, while literal, is not slavish, and its style is smooth and flowing. The similarity of Hebrew and Syriac in idiom and vocabulary was evidently of great help to the translator ; but still the Peshitta, as the Vulgate, falls far short of that accuracy of detail and consistency in translation which gives a version its chief value for Textual Criticism. The data which show the general character of the translation, and which thus, though of little or no importance per se, indicate where possible variants may be looked for and where not, may be at once collected and dismissed from further considera- tion. 3 1 Cf. Moritz, Oregorii Bar Hebraei in Duodecim Prophetas Minores Scholia, Leipzig, 1882. 2 It was impossible to find out whether the recension of Jacob of Edessa made in 704-5 was still extant; cf. Swete, Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 116, n. 4; and Ryssel, Untersuchungen uber die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Micha, p. 173. s Cf. Introduction; the Syriac readings are always mentioned first. The plus and minus of the Peshitta in regard to Vau are not noted; it is added about forty times and not once omitted. / Of THE I UNIVERSITY V or '""fa* Peshitta. 23 I* | *1 *1^ ma (always except in Ez.). I 4 ? additional (name of the Chemarim with the priests = name of the Chemarim with that of the priests). ! 6 Va (2) additional. T Part. = part, and looi (cf. l a , 3 5 , part.^impf.). l 6 ^ (2) additional. I 6 ^ ^<* = :DJ nnKD (cf. Is. 59 13 ). I 7 Ur* 1r^=ni7V ^1N (only in the Minor Prophets and Ez.). I 7 0=0 (cf. 3 20 , few). I 7 ^iol=anpn (cf. Jer. 12 3 ). I 8 Part.=part. and looi w ith ? (cf. 2 15 ). I 11 ^^o^= (of. 3 1 , <Jo-) ^ ^ *' additional. l ia U^tt 1 ?!. I 14 ^r^ eoi UU-D J. i V>> 1-05 oi^oo* ooi uOu^O=VtJFI mn s DV D'lp a^ip (the changes here are for the sake of clearness). 1" 1M=ni3^ (cf. 1 18 =1>^05). I 17 Impf. with ?=i consecutive with perf. I 18 Gold and silver = silver and gold (cf. Am.). I 18 jj^ajoo ^a^? ^nSnaj ]K n^D (this is perhaps a good interpretation, but not a very exact translation, cf. I 9 ll"^ ^aok- ^offiXs ^ jnsDn^^nn). I 18 Part.=impf. 2 4 vor^P ?i-*'l 3 =ninnE;K . 2 6 Part, with ^ part, construct. 2 9 ^^ i-^-^i? 5^=^ Vn. 2 9 looLi additional. 2 9 ' 5 ^-lr ia -'i^^ additional. 2 11 ^o^o^^nSK (for theological reasons). 2 12 minus suffix and HDH . 2 14 l^aiQ^j Ueu^ = s u in^n . 2 14 J?i its houses =in its capitals. 2 14 01Q -^ j^na . 2 16 jua^j? ^SnSizziaijy SD . 2 15 oioJ and i^opo additional (due to the fact that the following verses were referred to Nineveh). 3 1 I&JL^ additional (interpretative). 3 1 ^a*-=n:rn (this is read as the name of the prophet because of the interpretation just men- tioned [2 16 J; the order of the words is changed for the same reason). 3 2 ? additional. 3 5 V ^ 1 3a ^= l ?ij; jnr *6i . 3 6 AS^4 =1D27J. 3 6 Part, with ?=part. 3 6 -^> ^o=" l ?aD = pKO (cf. 2 6 ). 3 7 ?=!jK . 3 7 ^^^ additional (interpretative). 3 7 j^j^cVa nty ^3. 3 8 p] ^0^05 ^Dip. 3 8 ^^ additional (this verb is inserted to guard against ambiguity). 3 8 h-^=Djfl=a|H (cf. I 16 ). 3 9 ^-r-<no = m^3 (cf. 3 n =T^i-<n). 3 9 ? withimpf.=inf. of purpose (2). 3 10 Shall bring to me offerings shall bring my offerings. 3 11 aipD (cf. 3 17 , ^a-^ = ^a")pa). 3 (cf. 2 7 ). 3 15 **u* additional (cf. 3 7 ). 3 16 = |ry . 3" Vr* ^^=^2^ "^^ 3 18 !j 1 3j;D SD (it is unnecessary to suppose that D^D was read). 3 20 ooi additional (cf . I 14 ' 16 ). 3 20 Impf. =inf . with suffix. 3 20 ? l^ with part, and pronoun subject^inf. with suffix. 24 The Text of Zephaniah. It is evident from this collection of "peculiarities" that the motive of the Peshitta translator was religious rather than scholarly, and that he desired to make a readable rather than an exact translation. He much preferred expansion to condensation. Interpretative additions, especially in places where the style of the Hebrew is concise or elliptical, are not infrequent (2 15 , 3 1 , 3 7 , 3 8 ). There is a marked preference for long sentences, and these are formed by adding connective particles (passim). Pronouns are both supplied and omitted (2 12 , 3 11 ). Interpretations and paraphrases are occasionally found (I 4 , I 9 , I 18 ). There is at least one change for theological reasons (2 11 ). A word denoting a general conception is sometimes substituted for one that denotes a particular part of the conception (2 14 ). A plural is often used to render a collective (I 3 , 2 14 ). Minor changes of order, the reason for which is not clear, also occur (I 18 , 3 8 ). Gross ignorance of Hebrew syntax and vocabulary cannot be laid to his charge (cf., however, 1", 3 1 ). Ryssel's general estimate of the Peshitta of Micah 1 will serve equally well for that of Zephaniah. His words are : Fassen wir . . . unser Urtheil tlber den Syrer zusam- men, so muss die grosse formelle Gewandtheid anerkannt werden, mit welcher er die Gedanken des hebr. Textes ins Syrische tiberzutragen versteht, und der leichte, fltissige Stil, in dem alle Unebenheiten des Ausdrucks beseitigt sind; dabei schreibt er korrekt und vermeidet deshalb meist Hebraismen. CHAPTER III. THE SEPTUAGINT. I. For many centuries after its origin the Septuagint was a potent religious force, first among Hellenized Jews and later more especially among Christians. Its importance is shown by the translations of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian indirectly, 2 and directly by Origen's Hexapla and the recensions of Hesychius and Lucian. Through the gradual ascendancy of Rome, its place 1 Ryssel, Untersuchungen uber die Textgestalt und die Echtheitdes Buches Micha, p. 171. It is generally agreed that these translations were made in antagonism either to the Septuagint or to each other. The Septuagint. 25 was, however, more and more usurped by the Vulgate, and its direct religious influence continued only in the many secondary versions that were based on it. 1 During this time through the mixture and conflation of recensions and translations a process which was much facilitated by the lazy and ignorant use of Origen's Hexaplaric Septuagint the text of the manuscripts be- came exceedingly corrupt. Humanism in its passionate love for the literature of Occidental antiquity, and the Protestant Reforma- tion in that it rejected the authority of the Vulgate while its formal principle demanded an authoritative Scripture, combined to revive a critical interest in the Septuagint which has been steadily growing; but it has long ceased to undergo recension for religious motives, and the printing-press has checked all further corruption by eclectic manuscript transmission. The history of the Septua- gint thus falls into two general epochs, which may be called the Epoch of Construction and the Epoch of Reconstruction. Between these lies the period of manuscript transmission in which the second epoch must find its material with which to work. Many editions of the Septuagint have appeared, but the process of reconstruction is still far from complete. 2 The great problem is to recover the pre-Hexaplaric (pre-Origenic) text; but this can be obtained only after the Hexaplaric, Hesychian and Lucianic texts, which lie confused together in the manuscripts, have been separated from each other. The three types thus obtained would, after the recensional elements of each had been removed, represent the texts current in Palestine, Egypt and Syria in the early and late third century, and their collation would yield a very early Greek text. Along these lines comparatively little has as yet been done. 3 The extant Hexaplaric fragments have been collected 1 In the East, where it is still recited by the\Orthodox Church in the Ecclesiastical Offices, it lost much of its influence over the thought and life of the people. Swete Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek, p. 433. 2 As many as sixty-three editions and reprints between the Complutensian text and that of the larger Cambridge Septuagint (now in preparation) are enumerated by Nestle and Swete. The editions from which the reprints have been made are he Complutensian (4), the Aldine (6), the Sixtine (45) and the Alexandrian [Grabian] (5). The Cambridge Manual Septuagint completes a total of sixty-five. There are also several facsimile and photolithographic editions of manuscripts, but these are not generally accessible. Many editions of single books or groups of books have appeared; the text of Zephaniah seems never to have been separately published. 3 The larger Cambridge Septuagint will when completed be valuable mainly for its critical apparatus, for in its text it will but repeat the Manual Septuagint text of Codex B. 26 The Text of Zephaniah. by Field in his Hexapla Origenis, but the text is not restored in a connected form. Lagarde began the reconstruction of a pro- visional Lucianic text, but only one volume of his work appeared before his death. 1 The Hesychian recension has not yet been so much as definitely identified. 2 The collations of H. P. (= Vetus Testamentum G-raecum, cum variis Lectionibtis, ed. Robertus Holmes [ . . . editionem a Roberto Holmes inchoatarn continuavit Jacobus Parsons], Oxford, 1798-1827), and S. (= Cambridge Manual Septuagint, The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint, H. B. Swete, 1887-1894, 2 1895-1899) contain practically all the evidence of manuscripts and editions ; but the former has been severely criticised on the score both of accuracy and arrangement, 3 while the latter contains the variations of only the important uncials. II. The pre-Hexaplaric text of Zephaniah cannot thus be directly and positively established; indirectly something may, however, be done. In the apparatus criticus resulting from the combination of H. P. and S. there are numerous itacistic and sporadic readings which are easily recognized as such. Many rival readings, having good manuscript support, in regard to which nothing positive can be determined because of their nature, are also to be found; but since Cod. B. (=Vaticanus) on the whole presents the version in its oldest form, the balance of probability is in its favor in these cases. There are, however, several pronounced variations from B. and its supporters B. of 1 Cf. Lagarde, Symmicta, II, pp. 137-148. 2 To what extent the Hesychian recension is still accessible in manuscripts and versions of the Septuagint is uncertain Swete. Field made no mention of it in the Introduction to his Hexapla, although he discussed Lucian and his work extensively. Ceriani made the claim that the Codex Marchalianus (Q., XII) of the Prophets agrees very closely with the text presupposed in the Egyptian versions and in the works of Cyril of Alexandria, and that it is supported by 26, 109, 198 and 306. According to Tischen- dorf this codex belongs to the recension of Eusebius and Pamphilus, i. e. , it Is Hexa- plaric. The Hesychian group in Ezekiel according to Cornill is 49, 68, 87, 90, 91, 228, 238. Lagarde and Cornill thought that this recension was to be sought in the Aldina edition, which generally follows 68 even in its mistakes; but Stekhoven claimed that the Complu- tensian text in the Minor Prophets agrees with 40, a manuscript which is closely related to the text used by Cyril of Alexandria and therefore to Hesychius. Grabe found the recension in Codex B. For the remaining books of the Old Testament (i. e., with the exception of the Prophets) we have as yet no published list of manuscripts containing a probable Hesychian text Swete. 3 A complete stemma exhibiting the filiations of these manuscripts and recensions cannot be made from the collations of H. P. Moore, Judges, p. 14. The Septuagint. 27 course represents all manuscripts not cited as differing from it, at least in so far as the collations are dependable, which are of such a character that either they or the readings of B. from which they differ must be due to the recensions ; and for the attribution of at least some of these more or less positive criteria are available. The critical notes in the margin and text of the Syro-Hexapla in some cases indicate a choice, and in others a reading is shown to be due to Lucian by the known characteristics of his work. The fragments of Origen's Hexapla (fifth column) collected by Field, the Syro-Hexaplaric version and the Old Latin fragments can also here and there be used as a test. The text of B., thus confirmed or corrected as the case may be by the available evidence, may be accepted as original. Although many elements of uncertainty must remain in a text thus established, these will be in matters of detail which are of importance mainly for the editor of a critical edition, and which do not materially affect the use of the version for Old Testament Textual Criticism. 111. The Greek manuscripts of Zephaniah contained in the collations are the following: SYMBOL. NAME. DATE. A. (III.) Alexandrinus. V. K. Sinaiticus. IV. Q. (XII.) Marchalianus. VI. V. (23.) Venetus. VIII. T. Cryptoferratensis. IX. 22. British Museum Reg. 1, B. 2. XII. 26. Vat. Gr. 556. XI. 36. Vat. Gr. 347. XIII. 40. Dorotheus Moldaviens. XII. 42. Demetrius Moldaviens. XII. 49. Laur. XI. 4. XI. 51. Laur. X. 8. XI. 62. Ox. New Coll. XIII. 68. St. Mark's, Gr. 5. XV. 86. Barber V. 45. X. 87. Chigi 2. IX. 91. Vat. Ottob. Gr. 452. XI. 95. Vindobon, Th. Gr. 163. ? 97. Vat. Gr. 1153. X. 106. Bibl. Comm. Gr. 187, Ferrara. XV. 114. Evora, Carthus. 2. ? 28 The Text of Zephaniah. SYMBOL. NAME. DATE. 131. 1 Vindobon, Th. Gr. 23. XII 147. Ox., Bodl. Laur. 30. ? 153. Vat. Gr. 273. X. 185. Vindobon, Th. Gr. 18. XI. 198. Paris, Nat. Gr. 14. IX. 228. Vat. Gr. 1764. XIII. 233. Vat. Gr. 2067. XII. 238. Vat. Gr. 1153. IX. 239. St. Salvator Bonon. 641. XI. 240. Laur. VI. 22. XIII. 310. Mosq. Syn. 209. XI. 311. Mosq. Syn. 341. XI. IV. Approximately 500 different readings are noted in H. P. and S. (a) To this total K* has contributed a large number. He seems to have been a very poor copyist, as the following specimens of his work will show: I 3 yx^ves (t^vcs), I 4 ^tpa (^et/oa), I 15 ras TrdXts, 2 10 TravTO/cpdro/aav, 3 3 lire\L(f>Or)O-av. (>) Evident cor- ruptions of all kinds abound: I 12 dya&OTronJo-ei (dya^OTroi^o-r;), I 14 Taxwv) and raxvvr) (ra^eux), 2 4 SieaTracr/xoo^and Biecnrap/^evr) 2 5 K/OITWI/ (KpryTwv), 2 7 KaraXvTrots (KaraXotVots) , 3 8 e^e'Xcn 3 6 KarcWa (/carcWao-a). (c) The sporadic readings of single or of related manuscripts are numerous : spelling, 'lov&W ('lovSa) ; mood, I 7 vXa/?eicr0at (evXa/?er0e) ; tense, 1 s eKXeiTrera) (eKXiTreVa)) ; number, 3 B avraij/ (avr^s), I 3 eKXtTreroxrav (e/cXiTreTco) ; person 2 1 i)/xas (v/xas), 3 6 e^cpTyttaxrav (c^epry/xwo-w) ; case, I 6 Sw/xcuri (Sw/xara) ; preposition, I 10 OTTO (cTrt'), I 10 eKKevTowTwv (aTTo/cevTowTcov) , 2 2 eX^etv (cTTcX^etv) ; syno- nyms, I 16 tcr^vpds (o^vpds), dSt/cuxs and dvo/xoxs (dcreySetixs) ; words of similar appearance, 3 12 TroXw (TT/DCIVI/), 3 6 tixfrOrjcrav (rj^avLcrO^a-av) , 3" Trpovxy? (TT/OOO-^S); additions, I 4 ev (before Jerusalem), 3 2 <rov; omissions, I 1 6s: homoioteleutonic, 2 9 /xe'w? to /xeviy; dittography, I 4 7Tt *IOV&XV Kttt 7Ti *Iov8aV (7Tt 'lovStt Kttt'). V. Between a large number of rival readings which both have good manuscript support, decision must, as has already been sug- gested, be arbitrary. I 4 icpoiv tepeW. I 7 ^roe/xaKe ^Toi/xa<re. I 10 v rrj T7/Apa CKUVT) ev Kf.cvy ry -jy/xe/oa. I 11 Oprjvrja-aTe. OpyvtiTt. I 13 ov xi^| KaroiKr](TOv<rw ov /x^ Karot/CT/crowrtv. I 14 ^ ^xupa ly/xepa. I 18 ([i/Xov iyXovs. 2 4 'AaKaXcov 'AcTKaXcov <rrat. 2 8 1 130 and 131 is the same manuscript. It is by Lagarde assigned to the thirteenth century (cf. Z.A.T.W., 1908, p. 11). 238 is said to be a copy of 87. The Septuagint. 29 2 11 7ri^>av7/o-CTat em^av^s efrrat (cf. Joel 2 11 ' 31 , Hab. I 7 ). 3 a OVK ovSe. 3 4 01 icpcis tepcis. 3 6 &o8eveo-0ai, SioSeveiv. 3 8 8ta Trapa. It is with equivalents of which these are representative that the elusive Hesychian recension may sometime be connected, unless indeed the view that it was a new version now lost ultimately prevail. 1 Comparatively few variants remain, after B's readings have been accepted in all the cases that belong to this class. VI. Lucian had a double purpose in revising the Septuagint text. He wished to improve its Greek and at the same time make it conform more nearly to the original. His reverence for the Sep- tuagint sometimes led him to place two translations side by side. In supplying lacunae he made use of the translations of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian. His text also has interpolations that serve only to indicate the nexus of the thought or to make an obscure passage clearer. He seems to have allowed himself to introduce only minor changes for the sake of better Greek. An occasional removal of stiffness by a slight change of construction, and the sub- stitution of a singular for a plural predicate with a neuter subject, of a more familar word or form for one less familar, of one com- pound verb for another, and of a simple for a compound verb or vice versa, as far as now known, mark the extent of his literary revision. It is evident that there are no absolute criteria for detecting his merely literary changes, and therefore many variants of which one or the other is perhaps due to him belong to the class of which illustrations have already been given. ( V.) Cor- rections according to the Hebrew and interpretative additions may, however, be identified with more or less certainty. Accord- ing to Stekhoven the following readings are Lucianic: l a iravra additional; I 3 TO. trKavSaAa o-vv rots dcre/Jecrtv; I 4 TO>V )8aa\t/w., /u-era ran/ tepetov additional; I 6 Kara TOV Mc'X^o/x; I 12 TOVS Aeyovras; I 17 KXD; 2 a ^/xcpas additional ; 2 s ^T^crare SiKawxrw^v ^TT/crare irpaor-qra Kat vra; 2 13 ve/XTycrcrat ; 2 15 eycvcro; 3 s \\vTpo)fJivrj ; 3 1 * 3 20 ov additional. To these may be added: I 1 eyeVero; I 18 Svv^rai; 2 13 KTvu>, fjioV) airoXu*, 6rf<T<^\ 3 4 eis TOV vo/u,ov; 3 7 ctTrov, 8u<0apT<u; 3 13 ov /txij. There are also two readings from the other Greek versions which may have been introduced by Lucian: I 16 Aquila; 3 8 eye/oo-e'ws pov cuwvuxs, Symmachus. These Nova potius versio quam ' Septuagintae ' interpretum dicendaGr&be. 30 The Text of Zephaniah. readings, none of which are to be found in B., must all be rejected as recensional; they give no indication as to the nature of Lucian's Hebrew text. VII. (a). In its text and margin the Syro-Hexapla has a few important critical notes: I 4 */xra TWV lepeW. I 5 * *at TOV? Trpoo-- (margin) ; 2 2 * yuepa (note ; hoc ex reliquis) , * Trpo TOV <' v/xas ^/xepav 6vfj.ov Kvptou; 2 7 -j-r^s ^aXa(r<r>ys, -r- 'lovSa 1 ; 3 6 * cts <ws Kat OVK aTreKpvftfj Kat OVK eyvto doW'av cv aTratTTyo'et (margin) ; 3 6 -r-KaTO"7ra<ra VTrep^aVovs fi<f>avi(T0r)<raVy 3 10 * TrpocrSe^o^tat ei/ 8te<T7rap- /xe'vots fte (margin) ; 3 14 0vyarep; -4-Aeyet Kvptos. (5) From the text of the Syro-Hexapla additional data may be gathered: I 7 Kat omitted before ^yta/ce; I 9 rt Travras additional, cov omitted; I 11 Kat before tguXoOpevOrjo-av omitted; I 16 the order of words is O-KOTOVS Kat yvo<ov; 2 2 Ovpov additional; 2 14 Kat before KopaKcs omitted; 3 6 the order is Kpt/ua avrov Swo-et, VIKOS for VCIKOS; 3 8 Tr)v opyirjv fjtov -jrao-av opyyv Ovfjiov /xov was read ; vTroXeti^o/xat for vTroXiy^o/xat. (c) Field's fragments of the fifth column of the Hexapla, in so far as they were not derived from the Syro-Hexapla, were obtained from Codd. 86 and Q, and from the commentaries of Jerome, Theo- dore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria on the Minor Prophets. Some have thus already been cited ; the rest are here added. 1 s Kat aaOevrjo-ov&iv ot dcreySers; I 4 Kat ra ovo/xara TWV tepcwv; I 5 Kara TOV /Sao-iXews; I 9 Kat KStK>/<ra> fjL<f>av<*)<s ?rt ra TrpoVvAa; I 10 dwro 7rvAr;s aTTOKCvrowTcov ; I 11 ot KarotKovvres rrjv KaraKCKO/x/Aeviyv ; I 12 e^epev- v^o*a); I 16 OXtyetvs, dwptas Kat d^>avto-p,ov) ; I 18 o-vvreXctav Kat 2 1 (rvvd^drjTe. Kat o*w8e'^>yTe; 2 3 Kpt/xa, Kat aTroKptVeo^e avra; 2 4 eo-rat; 2 B TrdpotKOt Kpryrtuv; 2 6 Kp^rry; 2 9 Kat Aa/xao^Kos, w? 2 14 ws ^a/xatAcovTCS ; 3 1 w 17 e7rt<^av^s Kat a7ro\e\VTp(afievr) TroAts, ^ 7Tpto*Tepa; 3 3 XvKOt T^5 'ApayStas ; 3 6 ev 8ta^>^opa, ycovtat avraiv; 3 8 cts fjfjiepOLV dvao"Tao"co>s p,ov cts fAaprvpiov ; 3 9 on TOT p,eTaoTpi^<o CTTI Xaov? yXo>o"o*av fits yeveav avr^s; 3 10 CK Treparwv Trora/xoiv 'At^tOTrtas otcrovo-t ^vo-tas ;u,ot; 3 18 ws ev ^epa eopr^s, ovat. VIII. In the passages represented in these collections the text of B. is for the most part confirmed; and its readings, except 1 In the course of transmission an obelus has evidently fallen out before The one before 'Iotf5a is perhaps due to the fact that in some manuscripts a new line was begun with this word, for the diacritical marks were repeated before the first word of a new line. The Septuagint. 31 such as are about to be individually considered, may be at once adopted in preference to their alternates. 1 B All the evidence goes to show that /cat TOVS Trpotr/cvvowras was absent from the original text of the Septuagint, and these words must be deleted from B. I 9 In omitting CTTI Travras B. seems to have no better support than 40 and 239. Field and the Syro-Hexaplaric text disagree. It is necessary to insert this in B. The Syro-Hexaplaric omission of @cov is not explained by a note, but that this word was in the original Septuagint is attested by the Vulgate. 2 2 The last clause is asterisked in the Syro-Hexapla. In the preceding clause OvpSv is added with opyrfv (^Kjnn), and in the clause asterisked o/oyJ/s seems to have been read for Ovpov. There seems to have been some confusion between these clauses the initial words of which are the same. At least "aberant igitur haec a ' Septuaginta ' " does not at once follow, especially as the Old Latin preserved in the Speculum omits the second of these clauses and retains the third. The same omission is suggested by a corrector of Cod. Sinaiticus ( c - b ). These clauses are peculiarly liable to omission by homoioteleuton, as 233, Cod. Toletanus and several Hebrew manuscripts demonstrate. In view of this fact, and more especially because of the evident confusion, it seems unnecessary to delete either one clause or the other. 2 7 The Syro-Hexapla misrepresents Origen in 'suggesting that his fifth column read airo TT/OOO-WTTOU wuiv -f- 'lov&x X . The obelus must be placed before the first word. These words were perhaps incorporated into the text by someone who did not understand the absolute use of /caraAveiv in the sense of to lodge. 3 5 ' 6 According to the Syro-Hexaplaric notes and text Origen's fifth column read: Kpifjua. avrov Swcret * eis <<*>? /cat OVK a.7TKpvf3rj /cat OVK cyvw (<rav) dSt/ctav ev aTTonrrjcru X /cat OVK ets vt/cos dSt/ctav ev 8uL<f>06pa -r- /caT(T7ra<7a VTrepr;- <dVovs ^avto-^o-av X . The signs are again misplaced, for the last three words are certainly not a Septuagint addition. It is known that Origen sometimes gave .two readimgs where the Septuagint differs widely from the Hebrew, and that he then indicated the Hebrew current in his time by an asterisk and the Septuagint by an obelus. Evidently someone who was ignorant 32 The Text of Zephaniah. of this special method of indicating a doublette has arbitrarily brought about conformity with the general practice. One of the metobeli must be deleted, and the other must be substituted for the obelus. An obelus must be placed before the first ev. The Septuagint reading thus obtained makes fairly good sense, but it cannot be regarded as an attempted translation of the Hebrew that has come down to us. There are indications in the collation of H. P. that vet/cos must be read for vt/<os and Sia<d/oafor Sia<0opa. The Syriac for eV aTramJo-ei is Ik^sks. Field seems to have read this as ]&o A^ and the meaning may be in doubt. The Origenic reading thus becomes a triple gloss, "in doubt," "and not in dispute dSi/a'av," "in disagreement". The trouble seems to have been due to the words ntzto SlK, the first of which was so translated that the second had no apparent government. Comments occa- sioned by this supplanted the text, while a slight change in one case gave a good sense, and in another a possible translation of the Hebrew word (n&2i = ev 8ta<f>06pa) . The original Septuagint for n^ is thus unknown, but ev aTratTT/o-et /cat OVK eis vet/cos dStKiav h 8ia<f>06pa must be deleted. 3 8 D;N is represented in the Syro-Hexapla, but according to Field it was not represented in Origen's fifth column. It is absent from the Old Latin. As 0v/x,os and 0/0717 translate ^x, pin, DJN, rn3p and non indifferently, it was impossible to translate literally where three of these words occur together without repeating one or the other of them. One Greek word thus sometimes represents two Hebrew words (cf. Is. 13 13 , Jer. 4 8 , Zeph. 2 a ), and this may well be the case here. 3 10 The clause 7rpocr8e'o/>uu iv Steo-Trap/xeVoi? /xov is to be deleted because it is absent from the Hexaplaric text and the Old Latin of the Speculum. 3 12 The reading vTroAij^o/xat is an early inner-Greek corruption for i}7ro\i\l/ofjicu. The text of the Cambridge Manual Septuagint, which is based on a facsimile edition, is to be preferred to that of H. P., which represents a copy of B. made by the Dutch Septuagint editor, L. Bos. Where the Manual contains T instead of B. (3 9b -3 20 ), H. P. is to be preferred, and so xxu ^o-o/xat (3 19 ) and on (with , 3 20 ) are to be inserted. oAe'0/>evo- (2 11 ) should be eoAo- The Septuagint. 33 0/oevo-e (cf. 3 7 ). iraiSiav (3 a ) should be TraiScutv (cf. 3 7 ). aXwvos (2 9 ) must be corrected to dA.os (Putamus dA.os inter pretatos, id est^ sails ; sed ab imperitis, qui 0i/x,o>vtav, Aoc es, acervum, frumenti vel frugum, putaverunt, pro oAos additis duabus litteris, o> et v, quasi ad consequential^, frugum, aXwvos, Aoc es, areae positum Jerome) . As there seem to be no quotations of Zephaniah in the early Greek Church Fathers, the New Testament Apocrypha, the New Testament, Josephus, Philo or the Old Testament Apocrypha, no earlier text than that now established can be obtained. IX. The readings of the Septuagint which illustrate the general character of the translation without proving differences of text can now be presented. From these it will be seen that the Septuagint has no general characteristics which it does not share with the Peshitta or the Vulgate, or with both. 1 1 s K\efyu cKAtTreTo) ^ fpx *]DK (Est. 9" and * 73 19 seem to indi- cate that forms of ]io were read here; cf., however, DtK *]DK (I 8 ), where the verb was undoubtedly regarded as in the 3d person. The absence of a translation for SD makes it entirely uncertain what the Septuagintist read in his text). 1 s ircrara e|iy (collec- tive) ; dvo/xovs D1K (this is a change for theological reasons rather than an inner-Greek corruption from dv0/>o>7rous [cf. I 17 , avOp<i>- TTOVS DIK]. It is unnecessary to suppose that the Septuagintist had either D'yeh D1K [G. A. Smith] or [Gratz] D'KBn in his text). I 4 ovofuiTa DE? (collective) ; KM additional. I 5 Sw/xara nUJ (cf. * 129"). I 6 aTTo nnD; KOL TOVS p) ^rowras lK?p3 X 1 ? ItfKl (the Greek and Hebrew differ in regard to the verb-form to be used with the negative) ; dn-cxo/Aecous TOV Kvpiov int^"n (the participial form is again retained; for the sake of clearness the suffix is translated by its logical antecedent, cf. Jer. 8 3 ). I 7 vAa/?er0 DH (cf. Zech. 2 17 ); Ova-uiv avrov rUT (cf. 2 14 , avr^s). I 8 Kal lora* ..... KOL e/cSt/cTjo-w s mp)l .... mm (the Septuagintist does not seem to have understood the Hebrew tense consecution) ; fv8vtw.ro. BhaSD (collective). I 9 TrpoVvXa jnso (cf. I 12 ) ; eov additional be- tween "JIK and its suffix (these words were thought to refer to the temple, and by this addition the reference is brought out 1 Because the translator of Zephaniah seems to have known no law but caprice in his translations of the article, these have not been referred to ; for the same reason there are but few references to tenses. 34 The Text of Zephaniah. more clearly). 1" e^p^e'vot ^DJ (cf. II Sam. 24 12 ) ; cv rrj run (cf. 3 16 ). I 12 Xv X vov rnu (cf. I 9 ). I 13 ev avrats additional. I 14 Initial on and Kat additional (interpretative). I 18 Kat o-TrovS^v nSn3J }K (^r^rai, Jer. 15 8 ). 2 2 opyrjv *]K pin (cf. Is. 13 13 and Jer. 4 8 , passages in which 0v/xos translate f]X pin . In 3 8 Dyr seems to have been omitted in translation because the Septuagintist's supply of synonyms was exhausted). 2 3 rairtwoi ^y (= Si, 3 1S ) ; OTTWS^^SIK. 2 4 Kat additional; eKpt^T/o-erat niBnr (the construc- tion is changed to avoid the resumptive suffix). 2 5 dXXo<vX(Dv (this is the usual translation except in the Hexateuch). 2 5 v/xas sprnatfn (the object in the Septuagint is not Canaan, but the Philistines); CK KaroiKtas 3tfr pKD (cf. 3 6 ). 2 8 7rpo/3aY(ov pv (collective). 2 7 rots KaraXoiTrois rviKtf (concrete for abstract, cf. 3 13 ); eTrco-KCTTTat ips 1 (=KStK>7(ra>, I 8 - 9 ; the change of tense is interpretative). 2 8 ovetSto-^ovs r\3in (cf. 1 1S ) ; e/xeyaXwovro iVun (= e/xeyaA.w0*7<rav, 2 10 ) ; opia fiou oSuj (the reading of the Septuagint is intrinsically improbable, for the phrase my border in the sense of territory occurs nowhere else with Jehovah as speaker ; cf. I Chr. 4 10 ). 2 9 Kat (2) ad- ditional ; Kvptos Ttov 6\W/A<ov ni&OY mrr (= TravroKpaTw/o, 2 10 ) ; KaToAowroi nniy and in s . 2 10 toy omitted (this omission was inten- tional to strengthen the idea, cf. Jer. 48 aM2 ). 2 11 c7ri</>avvjo-cTat N1U (cf. Joel 2 31 , Hab. I 7 ) ; TWV eOv&v additional (this addition cor- responds to the change from gods to kings in the Peshitta). 2 14 KCU' (4) and avnjs (4) additional; OrjpLa TI/S y^s 'U irrn (the Septuagint has the phrase as it occurs in Gen. I 24 , cf . * 79 2 ) ; Orjpia <j><j)vir)<Tei 111^ Sp (?) ; Kat ^a/xatXcovres Kat e^tvot 13p DJl HNp DJi (collectives). 2 15 cXTrt's nan (cf. EC. 9 4 ) ; vo/4 0>;ptW n^nS pin. 3 2 Kat additional. 3 3 ev Dips (cf. 3 1M7 ). 3 3 w? (2) additional. 3* Kat additional. 3 6 e^ep^/xwo-o) ^nninn (cf. 2 7 ). 3 6b and 2 13 are good illustrations of free and literal translation. 3 7 Kat additional ; ^o\oOpvO'rfT ni:r (the re. was added under the influence of the preceding verbs) ; TrdVra oo-a SD . 3 8 VTro/xavov /xov ^ 13H ; dvaa-- /x.ov ''Dip ; ets (rvvaycoya? e0i/cov rov cts Se^acr^at ^SacrtXet? rov tK^eat ^p 1 ? D'U ^DX 1 ? (^ao-tXets is a contraction for jSooiXe&t?) ; minus S D^T (cf. 2 2 ). 3 9 yXwoxrav HSt^; Travra? D^D (cf. I 7 , 2 8 ) ; vyov DDiy (change of figure). 3 10 CK Treparwv TTOTO/AWV 'At0tO7rtas 1^13 nn: 1 ? 13^D (cf. 2 15 ). 3 13 Kat additional, mxtf is taken as the Interdependence of the Versions. 35 subject of the preceding, not of the following, verb ; K<U OVK lorrai 6 eK<o/3a>v avrovs Tina JW (the part, in this phrase never has an object, cf. Is. 17 a , etc.; cf. also 2 6 , 3", I 7 , 2"). 3 14 Bvyarep 'leppv- Stm?' (perhaps the change is due to the following w cf. Gen. 36 81 B.) ; 0X775 rr}? KapSuxs <rou n 1 ? Sm. 3 16 Xc- <re K x/3os l\^P^ v " ov ^P'** 3 (interpretative expansion ; it is unnecessary with Stekhoven to suppose that JH3 was read) ; h /xeVw o-ov }31p3 (cf. 3 3 ' 17 ). 3 16 v T<? Kcupo> OVD (cf. I 13 ). 3 17 ev o-ot }:np:j (cf. 3 3 , 3 16 ); object pronoun additional (2). 3 19 Xe'y Kvptos additional. 3 19 oi/o/xacrrovs Dfc? (3 20 idem). additional ; eW>7riov V OHAPTEK IV. THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF THE VERSIONS. I. The Peshitta is of Post-Christian origin, and in New Testament times the Septuagint was already so well established that it was quoted as authoritative. The wide popularity that the Septuagint enjoyed would tend to cause many of its phrases, expressions and interpretations to pass into current use, and some of these may have been unconsciously adopted by the makers of the new version. As they were not entirely familiar with Hebrew, it is natural that they should consult the existing version when in doubt. The two translations continued to exist side by side as ecclesiastically recognized versions, and correction of the one by the other is therefore not impossible, especially since many Greek ecclesiastics were resident in Syria for a longer or shorter time. That the Peshitta and Syro-Hexapla may have influenced each other mutually is shown by the case of Bar- Hebraeus, who is known to have used them both. The probability of interdependence, either initial or subsequent, thus established is so strong that the Septuagint and the Peshitta cannot be regarded as independent witnesses when they agree together against the Hebrew. 1 In Zephaniah the influence of the Septua- 1 This principle is of course invalid when the two versions follow a common tradition that can be located in the Aramaic Targum. The Targum of Zephaniah is, however, so paraphrastic that it gives little aid to Textual Criticism. That which it offers can here be conveniently collected:! 6 DD^D is interpreted as idols. I 9 "1J1 J^IH is explained as those who walk in the laws of the Philistines. 2* The imperatives are rendered by words having the root idea of assemble. 2 14 The Targum adds K3iy to ^Ip . 3 1 PHIID nJOID . 3 DD^ is represented by ^fQ 3" The obscure clause of this 1 verse is inter- preted by the captivity of my people ivhich was taken captive. 36 The Text of Zephaniah. gint on the Peshitta (or vice versa, cf. 3 10 ) can be discerned in several places. I 7 0^0 evAa/?eto-0 (Syro-Hexapla, a^-*?). I 11 Hwoi dpyv/oio) (Syro-Hexapla ^Nn4Sn). I 12 ^0019040^, ^ft . K ara- <j>povovvra<i CTTI TO, ^vXay/Aara avTtov (Syro-Hexapla, U'4J). I 13 v oous additional eV avrats additional (?) . 1 14 P--^c U .00 i-j^o VLKp ^ Ka i <rK\rjpa (reraKTat) Awa-n/ (Syro-Hexapla, P-^^ paa^io] ]. *-oo r^s o-a/oKas avrw. 2 1 1?> P? l^> ojJflj^o a-*lsA.l__ <r TO 0vos TO aTratScvTOV (Syro-Hexapla, 1|-^1 cjj0]A.]o 5 P? V^a^). 2 2 ^0001^ U,^ Trpo Tot) yeveV0ai v/xas (Syro-Hexapla, The Peshitta and the Septuagint both omit or in trans- lation. 2 s P-? 0,^1^0 Kpfa epyde<r6e. 2 6 Ur^ Kprfrrj. 2 7 l^a- additional T^S Oa\do-<nj<s additional. SA - X ^1 eTri^anyo-eTat (cf. the Syriac translation of &nij in Joel 2 11>S1 and Hab. I 7 ) ; t-^aJ eoAo- Opevo-t. 2 14 ^oiJJ UQ-^* Qypia. ^vyja-u. 3 1 l^^r- eTri^avrjs (Syro- Hexapla, 1^^-t- 1 ) ; l^Q-r 3 aTroXfXvTpupivri (Syro-Hexapla, l^-t-s). 3 s t-1 (2) additional <is (2) additional (?). 3 7 <*^?<t> pdcrOe (?) ; . 3 8 Kat rvpiov. 3 9 r* ir-^^ VTTO Cvyov Iva. 3 10 The Septuagint and the Peshitta both omit s vi} ra nnj;. 3 18 ^.oov^ additional avTovs addi- tional. 3 17 ^^r* /catvicio-e NO-^J ^] <J, S l v ^eaa. 3 19 The use that the Peshitta translator made of the Septuagint is on the whole a very intelligent one, although agreement in error can be found in the above list (l ia , 3 1 ). In I 14 he preferred to omit DSP rather than accept TeVaKTeu. In 2 3 he refused to accept a7roKpiW0c avTa, but he adopted the Septuagint interpretation of the first clauses of the verse ; dependence on the Septuagint was responsible for the omission of the second wpl. Perhaps the translation of p^na (2 14 ) by the colorless -^f> is due to the Septuagint Siopvy/Aao-iv. The Peshitta has hardly any demonstrable departures from the Massoretic tradition which it has not derived from the Septuagint. That the Peshitta has influenced the Septuagint in some of the instances cited, while not impossible, is still extremely doubtful. There is, however, to be found in many Greek manuscripts a very early translation of the obscure phrase in 3 10 (7rpoo-8e'o/xcu ev &e- o-TrapjuteVots /AOV) ; perhaps this belonged to the original Septua- gint, but was omitted under Syriac influence. In at least some Interdependence of the Versions. 37 of the readings cited the Peshitta seems to have influenced the Syriac translation from the Septuagint (cf. 2 1 , 3 1 ). II. Jerome lamented the fact that in his day the world ' was divided between three opposing texts of the Septuagint.' 1 It was his purpose in his translation to get behind the Septuagint back to the "Hebrew verity"; and though he frequently reminds his reader that his work is not condemnatory of the ancients, 2 he is not slow to point out wherein and how they erred. As the pur- pose of Origen was similar to his own, he was naturally a great admirer of the Hexapla. His use of it can readily be illustrated by a few quotations : 2 7 Quod autem legitur in ' Septuagintam ' a facie filiorum Juda, obelo praenotavimus, nee in Hebraeo enim, nee apud ullam fertur interpretatum. 3 9 Ubi nos interpretati sumus reddam populis labium electum, pro electo 4 Septuagintes ' dixerunt in generationem ejus, ut subaudiatur, terrae. Et hinc error exortus est, quod verbum Hebraicum BARURA, quod Aq. et Theo. electum, Sym. Mundum interpretatus est, 'Septuagintes' legerunt BADURA. 8 3 18 Miror autem Aq. et ' Septuaginta ' in eo loco ubi diximus: congregabo quia ex te erant, pro erant interpretati voluisse vae, sive ot, quod semper Aq. non pro plangendo, sed pro vocando et inclamando ponit. There are only a few passages in the Vulgate which seem to indicate direct dependence on the Septuagint. Nomina and 6v6fjuara (I 4 ), silete and evXafttLo-Oe (1 7 )> transeuntem and Tropcvo/xevov (2 2 ), et attenuabit and /cat eoA.o0/oaxrei (2 11 ), the additions of quasi and d>s (3 3 ), expecta and vTro'/xeii/ov (3 8 ), and the addition of the same suffix (3 9 ) may all be accidental. Columba (3 1 ) may not be due to the Septuagint ircpto-Tcpa, for in Jer. 25 38 Jerome makes the same mistake. Corvus (2 14 ) is, however, an intentional agree- ment with the Septuagint against the Hebrew of his day (Quod 1 Totus orbis hac inter se trifaria varietate compugnat. Preface to Chronicles. 2 Obsecro te lector ne laborem meum reprehensionem existimes antiquorum. 9 In Zephaniah none of the minor Greek Versions are extant in manuscript, and only fragments contained in quotations such as these have been recovered. The longest of these fragments is one from Symmachus, preserved by Theodore of Mopsuestia : (3 10 ) TrtpaOev irorafjiuv ''AiBioirtas iKer&jovrd /we TKVO. T&V 8ie<TKOpTrur/j.tv(i>v vir' 1 tfwv tvty- K<a<ri Swpov tfjiot. They are of no textual value, for they have for the most part been preserved in citation only because they agree with the Massoretic Text against the Sep- tuagint. 38 The Text of Zephaniah. nos et * Septuaginta ' similiter transtulimus corvus in Hebraeo ponitur HAREB. The Vulgate and the Septuagint agree further in the peculiar addition of TiSK between <I JIK and its suffix (I 9 ) ; in the interpretation of *pDJ (2 1 ), 101:1 (2 s ) and nSjUJ (3 1 ) ; and in the subordination of the independent clause of 3 ao . All these agreements can hardly be accidental, 'especially since it is known that Jerome was thoroughly familiar with the Septuagint. CHAPTER V. THE DEPARTURES OF THE VERSIONS FROM THE MASSORETIC TRADITION AND THEIR POSITIVE VARIANTS FROM THE CONSO- NANTAL TEXT. I. Vowels and accents were introduced into the Hebrew text not earlier than the sixth century A. D. The so-called Sopherim in the first Christian centuries fixed the form of writing as regards the matres lectionis. There is good reason to believe that there was neither word or sentence division in the earliest manuscripts. It is therefore possible to consider the consonantal text entirely apart from the form which tradition has given it by the word and verse division that now obtains, and from the inter- pretation that the vocalization gives it; for these are as it were superimposed upon the original text. The translators in some cases adopted a possible reading or interpretation which disagrees with the Massoretic tradition. J (a). 1 s Congregans (2) t|OK (* efoKj cf. I 2 ). I 5 Melchom D^Sp (*o3Sp is read in the Massoretic text only in I Kgs. 11 B ' 8 and II Kgs. 23 13 ; it has been proposed to read it also in I Kgs. II 7 , II Sam. 12 30 , I Chr. 20 2 , Am. I 15 and Jer. 49 1 ' 3 . Jehovah is often called a king [cf. 3 1B ; Harper, Amos and Hosea, p. 141; and Brown, Driver and Briggs' Hebrew Lexicon, Art. ^D, 3], The name Milchom occurs or is proposed as a reading only in 1 In this and the following lists the readings that must be rejected as evidently wrong have been indicated by a star. Some that have only the negative merit of being not impossible have been left undistinguished, and those that commend themselves some- what more strongly have been marked with a dagger. Departures from Massoretic Tradition. 39 passages in which Ammon is mentioned in the immediate context. In this passage there is no reference to Ammon, and therefore it is necessary to accept the Massoretic punctuation and to look for the exact meaning of the words in the use of different preposi- tions with the same verb). l u conticuit nmj (* n? ?"^ T ). I 14 The Vulgate takes in as a predicate adjective with Dr. 2 & perditorum DWD fD'in?, cf. I Kgs. 7 12 Pro CHORETIM, quod dicitur, perditorum, nomen Cretae Insulae (' Septuagintes ') putaverunt Jerome). 2 14 attenuabo mix (*H^, cf. 2"). 3 8 in futurum ~W^ (t Ubi nos transtulimus, in die resurrectionis meae in futurum, et omnes interpretati sunt, in testimonium, Hebraeus, qui me in Scripturis instituit, asserebat LAED in praesenti loco magis ek eri, id est, in futurum debere intelligi Jerome; cf. Is. 30 8 , Am. I 11 , Is. 9 8 and Gen. 49" in the Vulgate). 3 18 Nugas ;u (*nugas .... a nobis ita ut in Hebraeo erat positum, ut nosse possimus linguam Hebraeicam omnium linguarum esse matricem. This has been characterized as an interesting bit of crude com- parative linguistics. Amara = in (I 14 ) would have served Jerome's purpose much better. The Septuagint offers a parallel in x<w>s=\J, (Mic. I 4 ). 3 18 ut non ultra habeas Sy fiKtyn (* L ?j; n&u?n, cf. Lev. 19 7 ). 3 20 in tempore quo congregabo ^3p AP3 (f AP?). See further under (c) 2 2 , 3 1 ' 1 , 3 20 . (5) ! 6 >onn\sn D5Sn (cf. Vulgate, supra). I 11 ojo^nnij (*naru). 2 14 V^H* 3in (^l 1 ?)- 3 n Kinn DVD is connected with what precedes and not with what follows. See further under (c) I 11 , 2 a , 3 1 , 3 8 , 3 19 . (c) I 1 TOV TOV xovo-i 'Bho p (the Septuagintist has interpreted 'J^O 1 3 patronymically as the following mov seems to show). I 11 rv)v KaraKCKo/x/oieVr/v ^roDH (* i^nDQn) ; kfjioiuOrj npnj (there are two similar roots of which one means * to be like', the other, to destroy). I 12 <v\ay/wrra (cf. Peshitta) avrwv Drnni?( * DnnD, cf. Ex. 12 42 ). I 14 reraKrat D (*Dt?) ; ^13 J was read as an adjective with the fol- lowing DV and not as a noun. I 17 KCU expect }3i?i (* ^3^,1). 2 a TTopevd/xevov (cf. Peshitta and Vulgate) "O;? (j- 13 j;). 2* aTro/c/oiVeo-- ^c avra nij^ (* ^nwjj). 2 14 Stopvy/xacm/ j^n (this meaning of the word is to be found nowhere else in the Septuagint). 3 1 aTroXeXv- Tpa>/u,eV>7 (cf. Vulgate and Peshitta) nS&u: (there are two roots SKJ, of which one means * to redeem ; the other, to pollute) ff (cf. Vulgate). mrn (this form may be a * noun subject 40 The Text of Zephaniah. of nyntf, 3 2 ; or a participle from nr, to oppress). 3 3 'Apa/?ias anj; (* 3lj, cf. Jer. 25"; in Hab. I 8 the Septuagint bas the same reading, and in Jer. 5 6 ecus TWV ofciW represents rn3ij? = rr:i iy). 3 (cf. Peshitta) ItfS (i#7; cf. Yulgate, supra). 3 12 nnKtf is taken as the subject of the preceding verb by the Septu- agint. 3 16 epct Kvpos "iraK?. (* lOK" 1 was read and KV/HOS was inter- pretatively added, cf. 3 19 ). 3 19 ev o-ot eve/cei/ o-ou ipyo ho fitf (* }fiK W?S) ; T^V KTTTTLe^vr}v (cf. Peshitta) j^n (cf. Mic. 4 8 ' 7 , Gen. 32 33 ; there are two roots yStf of which the y is represented in Arabic by Dad and Ta respectively; the one may mean, to oppress-, the other, to limp. The former is found in the Old Testament only in the noun ySv, rib ; but the Septuagint suggests very plausibly that the word here and in Mic. 4 6 - 7 be taken from the root that has the meaning of to oppress. Barth [ Wurzeluntersuchungen . . . , uu pp. 39, 40] suggests the Arabic J^ as the cognate of the word here used). 3 19 h rw Kai/ow orav eto-Sc'lo/xat '^p '"W? (f AP?, of. Vulgate). (d) These readings, so far as they are not at once condemned by internal evidence, are suggestive for the interpretation of the text. Whether they are wrong or right, they shed additional light on the translations and translators. They also indicate the gradual crystallization of the tradition that grew up around the text, for departures from it decrease in the versions in the order of their rise. II. The readings of the versions so far considered either agree with the current consonantal text, or else data are lacking to show that the text of which they are severally the translation varied from it. It is still necessary to consider the equivalents in regard to which there is positive evidence of disagreement. Many variants are by the context or by parallel passages shown to be due to the intentional or unintentional faithlessness of the translators to their copies, or to the defective character of the exemplars which they used. Those that are not thus condemned will represent each version's actual contribution to the textual criticism of Zephaniah. (1) Most of the variants are reducible to the addition, omis- sion, transposition, or change of single letter?. Variants from Consonantal Text. 41 (a) I 14 tribulabitur rm (I 1 *, I 17 and especially Am. 3 11 show that *[n]iY was read; the rendering by the future is interpretative, cf. Am. 3", idem). 2 14 robur e/wa my (*n ; Ty, cf. Pr. 21", Jer. 5 1 68 ; this change may be due to the punctuation of the preceding nnK which Jerome adopted). 3 1 provocatrix HfcOlD ( Quod signi- ficantius Hebraeice dicitur *MARA, id est, TrapairiKpaivov<ra Jerome). 3 10 filii r3 ('J3; this may, however, be an inner-Latin corruption from t /jfo'a). See further under (c) 2 14 . (b) ).f\.. -ppjn (* n^pSn). I 10 )r>$ D>:n (OTV, this word is always so rendered in the Peshitta, when it occurs in connection with lytf). See further under (c) 2 a - 2 , 3 1 , 3 7 - 7 , 3 17 . (c) I 8 OLKOV "J3 (confusion between JVD and "ft is frequent; O'KOS = ', Jer. 16 16 , Ez. 2', I Chr. 2 10 ; vloi=no, Gen. 45", Ex. 16", Jos. 17 17 , 18 16 , Hos. I 7 ). I 9 e/M<av(us jiSin (it has been suggested that ^n or rhl was read ; there may, however, be a corruption in Greek here. Perhaps a participial form of e/u./ftuvo), i. e., e/A/?avras, stood in the original Septuagint; cf. I Sam. 5 6 , Greek). I 10 cbro- KO/TOWTCDV D'jnn (* D'jnn ; cf. II Chr. 33 14 ). I 14 o-KA^pd m* (the Sep- tuagintist has translated a derivative of "ny, to be hard). 2 a irpb TOV yivsvOai v/xa? (cf. Peshitta, Pr^^zK 1 ? Qiwa) pn trh D"D3 (per- haps the Septuagintist readiprnn K^ D*iD3 and made use of the color- less yeve'o-00,1 to translate the verb because he misread po) ; av0os ^D (*p) ; the omission of or from the Septuagint (cf . Peshitta) may be due to a reading DOT'iDy. 2 5 irdpoiKoi "U (Pro GOI, id est, gente, l Septuagintes ' legerunt * GAR, hoc est, advenam Jerome). 2 14 KopaKs (cf. Vulgate) :nn (t^ij?) ; TO Avao-riy/xa avr^s my (*nvy, cf. Jer. 15 8 , Hos. II 9 , * 73 20 ; my, to rowse, is ren- dered by firavLa-rrjfjiL in Job 17 8 ). 3 1 (TTi^av^ (cf. Peshitta and Syro- Hexapla) HKIID (* ^, cf. 2 11 ). 3 8 4ir W ^vow D' (f D ' w ). 3 7 ^ 6<t>0a\fji>v a.vTrjs (cf . Peshitta) miyD (f n^ryo) ; eToi/xaov (cf. Peshitta) opOpicrov tyOaprai ira(ra ^ eTri^vXXts avrwv IDOtfn |3K omVSy ^73 in^ni^n (cf . the Vulgate rendering of the two verbs ; * orviSSy SD in^nt^n opt^n pn) 3 9 ets ycveav avr^s mna (* nTna)^ 3 12 evXaprjOTjo-ovTat, ion(* 1DH, cf. I 7 and Ne. 8"; 0. = ! is due to this reading). 3 17 firdu vw (* rnsr; KCUVW? (cf. Peshitta) nn' (f E^Hn"). 3 18 TOVS o-wrerpt/x/xevovs ^JOD ( D"pp ; with erov in the Greek text, ^3n, cf . Ex. 5 16 ) ; 3 18 ovac rn (f 'in, cf. 2 5 ) ; rts nfe/D (f KET" % n). 42 The Text of Zephaniah. (2). There are a few readings which suggest a somewhat greater difference of text than those just considered do. 1* ovojjLara iKtf (oty, perhaps this is due to the DK? in the context, or to either Hos. 2 19 or Zech. 13 a ). 3 18 d>s ev ^e/oa (cf. Peshitta) Qvja-ovrai DHtf 3 (* B'0^?rj ; for the sake of variety this was rendered by a passive, since DT\DJy occurs in the immediate context). 3 20 (3). The words in the versions for which there is no equiv- alent in the Hebrew are, as has already been indicated, evident expansions of an interpretative character. Where the Hebrew text is fuller than that reflected by a version, explanation is not so easy. The only word not represented in the Vulgate is mD (2 6 ). Except where it is dependent on the Septuagint (I 14 , 2 a , 2% 3 10 ?), the Peshitta text is as full as the Hebrew text with but a single insignificant exception (2 12 , a suffix and a demonstrative pro- noun omitted). There are only a few places in which the Septu- agint has no equivalent for words to be found in the Hebrew text. Decision as to whether these words convict the Septuagintist of omission or illustrate the "growth of the Massoretic Text" must from the nature of the case be largely subjective. From the time of Luther scholars have remarked a tendency on the part of the translators of the Septuagint to omit what they did not under- stand. The translator of Zephaniah must be charged with omis- sion on this score. 1* Dp D'lDDn . Chemarim occurs in only two other places in the Old Testament. In one of these the Septuagint transliterates it (II Kgs. 23 5 ), and in the other its translation is the result of a transparently inappropriate etymology (maji KM Ka0o>s Tra.pf.TrL- Kpavav avrdv, Hos. 10 6 ). It is thus entirely probable that this (and the following) word was omitted because it was not understood. I 6 . The only argument that can be advanced in regard to D'lnntfon (2) is stylistic. It seems to make the construction rather awkward. Cod. Q omits D'jntfjn (2) ; this may be the Hesychian reading, for Cod. Q is an Egyptian manuscript. This disagreement in the Septuagint makes it difficult to determine which word, if either, is additional in the current Hebrew. 2 s . A desire to make the construction uniform may account for the omission of lute and the suffix of infltfn. The mis- Variants from Consonantal Text. 43 reading of nup, by which the Peshitta was led astray, seems to have caused the omission of the third uppu. This verse is a good illustration of how the Septuagint influenced the Peshitta. 3 10 . '13 nanny. The meaning of these words is not clear, and it is therefore more probable that they were omitted by the Septuagintist than that they were interpolated into the Hebrew subsequent to the time of translation. If 7rpoo-8e'o/xai lv Sieo-Tra/o/Ac- vots fiov, as has already been suggested, was in the original Septu- agint, it was later omitted under Syriac influence. may be a corruption for Tr/aoo-ei^o/xai (cf. Ju. 13 8 ). ev fjiov seems to represent 'Jfisp? (cf. II Chr. 18 18 ), which agrees closely with the reading that the Yulgate seems to suggest (filii dispersorum meorum "^ \^). (4). In the three passages that remain to be considered the Hebrew is difficult, and help from the versions would be very welcome. I 3 , et ruinae impiorum erunt V*4-*'V^ |A1 ]A^oculo Ka l do-^cv- ricrova-Lv ol cure/Jets D'yenn n m^EODrn. The versions all agree as to D"ych (cf. Peshitta, Num. 16 ao ), but each one gives it a dif- ferent grammatical government. They also agree in regard to the root htiD (cf. Septuagint, Ez. 21 20 ), though not in regard to the form of it here to be read. The n, which is difficult, is not represented in the Septuagint or Yulgate, and the Peshitta seems to have read it as the first person imperfect of nnx. Jerome wrote among other things in regard to these words, pro quo Sym. interpretatus est, et scandala cum impiis, ut subaudiatur, con- gregabuntur, sive deficient' Quinta autem ed., et infirmitas cum impiis deficiet. It would seem from this quotation that Jerome knew of the r\K in the text, and that the Vulgate translation is supposed to do justice to it. Though it is quite certain that this troublesome word is not represented in the Septuagint, it is impossible to determine what the Greek does represent. Perhaps the first word was read as a perfect with vau conversive; on this supposition the Hebrew has sometimes been corrected. The witness of the versions is contradictory and entirely inconclu- sive. 2 6 . Eteritfuniculus maris requies pastorum, et caulae pecorum 44 The Text of Zephaniah. 7rot/mW KCU /jiavSpa Trpo/Jarw |l3f niTUl D'JH HID nu O'H Whether n^n or nrrn was read by the translators, it is impossible to determine. The Vulgate has omitted mo and read nnj for nu (requies is the constant translation of nnj). The Peshitta has interpreted the verse freely in accordance with its reading of mD (Crete) adopted from the Septuagint. DTI Snn is not represented in the Septuagint; the order of nu and mj is reversed; mj is read as a proper name; irot/mW translates D^n (cf. 2 14 iroipvui=; D'Yiy; at vofuu TO>V woi/xva>v=D'jnn 111 JO, Am. l a , seems to indicate that 7rot/AV6o>v must be corrected to Troi/xeVwv) . Perhaps the addi- tion of TT}S 0a\d<ro"r)s (2 7 ) is compensatory for the omission of DTI S^n (cf. Peshitta). The difficulty of the translators seems to have focussed in mj, which is a hapax legomenon. This word is by many regarded as a gloss on nu ; to others both it and DTI ^n seem superfluous. The impossibility of correcting the Hebrew by the versions is patent, but Slin nrrn is inexplicable (the noun is always masculine except in this verse, cf. 2 7 ). The wide divergence of the versions from the current Hebrew and from each other becomes clear when the various texts are placed side by side in translation : (a) Revised Version And the sea-coast shall be pastures, with cottages (caves; others, wells) for shepherds and folds for flocks. (b) Vulgate And the sea-coast shall be a place of rest (cf. Verg. A. Ill, 393) for shepherds, and a fold for sheep: (c) Peshitta And the sea-coast shall be a dwelling place, and Crete a pasture for flocks of sheep : (d) Septuagint And Crete shall be a pasture for flocks, and a fold for cattle. 2 8 . siccitas spinarum et acervi salis r^l , *oi-^J & S n tiZ|? .^quMn \Sr Aa/Aao-Kos cKAeAei/AjueV?; a>? ^t/xwna dAds fl^D mDDl SlIH pK^DD. Jerome read p.Eto, and acerviis dependent on Olivia (Siccitas, quod Hebraeice MAMASAC; . . . MEM si mutetur et DALETH accipiatur, easdem litteras habet quas et Damascus ; . . . 0i//,<uviav, id est, acervum). The Peshitta seems to have read m^D (Job 30 4 ), mallow. Snn (Syriac, IV*; cf. Prov. 24 31 , Lee, li-^~) was in contrast with mSn, which grows wild, interpreted as cultivated grasses. n"OD was read as a passive form of n"O and translated as always by r^. A parallelism was produced by giving the Conclusion. 45 remaining word a corresponding meaning. The relative and suf- fixes, as well as the conjunction and copula, of the next verse are interpretative additions. The Syriac is thus to be rendered: because their crop has been destroyed, and their wild grass has perished. The origin of Aa/xao-Kos is explained by Jerome. e/cAc- Xufjt,fj,tvri shows that Sin was read for Sin. 0i/Awvwx. shows that n"OD was derived from jvo in a sense preserved in the Aramaic ('"O, UH>) and the Assyrian (karu). oXos must, as has already been indicated, be read for dAon/os. While witnessing to the orginality of the current Hebrew, the versions give absolutely no help in its interpretation. OHAPTEE VI. CONCLUSION. Everything in the versions that seemed to have a bearing on the criticism of the text has now been presented with as much fulness as it seemed to warrant. The nature of the material con- sidered makes differences of opinion in regard to its proper dis- tribution inevitable, but the necessity for some such scheme of classification as has been adopted will hardly be denied. The departures of the Vulgate from the Massoretic tradition which have been noted have no special merit, and of the readings in which it bears positive witness to a difference between its "Urtext" and the present Hebrew not one is worthy of con- sideration. In every case its witness to the text on which it is based (cf. I 14 - 2"), or the witness of that text itself (cf. S'^is unreliable. The Peshitta, when it is independent of the Septua- gint, disagrees with the Massoretic tradition very infrequently, and the few variants that it offers are no more worthy of accept- ance than are those of the Vulgate. So far as it can be con- trolled, the testimony of these two versions is in favor of the accurate transmission of the Hebrew from the time of their origin. This conclusion would perhaps need some revision, if the numerous non sequiturs due to the process of translation could be eliminated. To possess the manuscript or manuscripts used by the translators would therefore be of considerable advan- tage to Textual Criticism. 46 The Text of Zephaniah. If the recovery of the sources of the Vulgate and the Peshitta is a thing to be desired, the possession of the source of the Septu- agint is positively a sine qua non for the full understanding of the history of the Hebrew text of Zephaniah, for this translation is but a sorry equivalent for its original. It was not made by one who had a "genius for translation", for his general inaccuracy seems to have been even greater than his lack of knowledge, unless indeed he attempted to cover his ignorance by manipulat- ing his text. Many of his translations call vividly to mind the hit or miss achievements of a school-boy whose pensum stands between him and the play-ground. Luther accused the Septua- gintists, as a body, of "disdaining to speak the letters, words and style". To show the justice of this criticism as far as Zephaniah is concerned, one need only to remove the numerous faulty or wrong translations and interpretations from the Greek text; for hardly a verse will then remain intact. A comparison of the possible with the impossible variants in the consonantal text that it definitely supports shows that the attitude which must be maintained toward the Septuagint of Zephaniah is one of general distrust. It rarely agrees with the Massoretic text, where that text is difficult ; but the alternates which it suggests are generally even less acceptable. 1 It cannot be appealed to as an infallible authority on hapax legomena, nor can the Hebrew lexicon be enriched by the meanings of rare words that it sup- ports. Since the testimony of the Septuagint as to its source is so unreliable, its value for Textual Criticism is much less than it might be in view of the comparative nearness of its " Urtext " to the autograph. It is especially unfortunate in this case that the Septuagint does not speak with a more certain voice either in condemnation or confirmation because of the difficulties which the Hebrew presents. 2 The only general conclusion warranted by the facts is that the Septuagint offers no conclusive evidence that the " Lagardian archetype" was not the text on which it for B^IT (3 17 ) has gained wide acceptance, and yet against this possibly correct reading three positively wrong readings of T or "| must be balanced in this book. (i,2,3). 2 The difficulties in the Hebrew and in the interpretation of Zephaniah are briefly pre- sented in Appendix I. Difficulties in the Hebrew Text. 47 also was based. As far as the possibility of showing the con- trary by external evidence goes, the present Hebrew text may well be that of the autograph of Zephaniah, 1 for the few parallels in thought and diction with other parts of the Old Testament to be found in the book are of no critical value (I 6 Jer. 8 2 ; 1" Jer. 48 11 ; I 13 Am. 5 n ; I 18 Ez. 7 lfl ; 2 8 Is. 16', Jer. 48 ae - 48 ; 2 14 - 1& Is. 13, 21 - 22 , 34 11 , 47 8 - 10 ; 3 4 Ez. 22 28 ; 3 10 Is. I 18 ), and the versions offer not a single reading which absolutely demands acceptance. APPENDIX I. THE " DIFFICULTIES" IN THE HEBREW TEXT OF ZEPHANIAH. The words and phrases included in this list have occasioned a great deal of discussion. It may be safely affirmed that in regard to them nothing is certain. l a 'JDK ^DK. The infinitive absolute is from a different root than the finite verb. (sjDKK, Wellhausen; *]?', Nowack; cf. * 104", Mi. 4 B ). I 9 rK. The word stands between two nouns (r\K 'n^Eon, Oort). I 5 D\j?3tfan D'mntfon. The juxtaposition of these two participles is awkward. (Some would omit the former, while others prefer to delete the latter). Ehrlich (Mikrd Ki Pheschuto, III, p. 456) suggests that the use of different formulas of swearing is indi- cated by "a j?3Bfo and "h yzwi ; the former referring to the s n form, the latter to the ^K form. I 9 |r2D hy jSin. The Targum seems to connect the words with the custom of the Philistine worshippers of Dagon, I Sam. I 6 ; cf. Trumbull, The Threshold Covenant, 2d ed., p. 117. Ehrlich (p. 457) translates: die in denVorzimmern herumscharwenzelen. He thinks that sycophants are referred to, and that they are com- pared to dogs leaping up and down at the threshold of their master. I 14 nnn. This word must be read as a participle (IHDD, Well- hausen). 1 The protests of Conjectural Criticism and Higher Criticism do not properly fall within the limits of the present inquiry, but a few remarks which seem not entirely uncalled for have been added in Appendix II. 48 The Text of Zephaniah. I 14 "11:2:1 rm in rnrr or Sp. The grammatical relation of these words to each other and to what precedes is obscure. (The con- jecture of Gratz is rather heroic, 113:0 niir nirr ^p). 1 17 DnS. The exact meaning of this word is unknown (cf. Job 20"). 1 18 nSmj. nSrVj is the ordinary form. 2 1 iKhpi itfuhpnn. The meaning of the words is unknown. pDJ is also uncertain (the Aramaic *|DD means turn pale). 2 a D1D3 with an infinitive occurs only here (in Is. 17 14 and 28* it is used with a noun), and the pleonastic use of S with this con- junction is found nowhere else in the Old Testament. 2 8 The word ^n seems to be feminine in this verse ; in the next verse it is masculine, rnj is found only in this verse; the usual form is m*O. niD is a hapax legomenon of doubtful meaning (Ehrlich, nyi?). 2 7 It is not clear to whom the suffix of orr 1 ?;? refers (D^n hy, Wellhausen). 2 9 p$DD and niDD are hapax legomena, and the meanings usually given to the words are conjectural. 2 11 The tense of nil is difficult and its meaning is obscure. 2 14 nip nrw o ^DU nn p^na intf* Sp? Ehrlich suggests that the 3 of 3in is due to dittography, and he translates the first five words: es pfeift lustig zum Fenster hinein, zum Loch an den Pfosten. 3 1 In HK1D the is hard to explain. 3 8 1D1J is by many regarded as a hapax legomenon (cf . Septua- gint), others take the word as a denominative from DiJ (cf. Nu. 24 8 , Ez. 23 24 ). 3 4 ni1J3 is a hapax legomenon as to form. 3* 11V3 is a hapax legomenon. 3 7 "U1 Sj seems to hang in the air. (It has been proposed to read n^jJD with the Septuagint, to change rn:r to ino% and to take hy s nip) in the sense of command, Lagarde.) 3 10 'injj is a hapax legomenon. 'ysna ? 3 17 "3 a^irv. A direct object for the verb seems necessary OTO, cf. * 21 7 ). 3 18 There are two roots to which uu may be referred; of these one means to be grieved, the other, to be removed. The two Criticism of the Text. 49 translations offered by the Revised Version illustrate the extreme obscurity of this verse. 3 19 nx-niyy is unusual (Gratz suggests that n^D be added, cf. The grammatical governments of unwi is not clear (Noldeke proposed to delete the final D of D'nDfr and to take Dntfa as its object. APPENDIX II. THE CONJECTURAL TEXTUAL CRITICISM AND HIGHER CRITICISM OF THE TEXT OF ZEPHANIAH. I. No one can say what may or may not happen to a text transmitted in manuscript, and therefore not even the wildest conjecture can be dismissed as impossible; but it is equally true, even though the contrary seems to be implied in the confident assertions of some, that the fact that Zephaniah may have expressed a thought in a certain form or written a sentence in a certain way does not actually prove that he did so write or express it. The relative plausibility of the readings which it has been pro- posed to substitute for those in the current Hebrew can be more or less accurately gauged. In Appendix I the conjectures that have something positive to recommend them have already been noted. A free reconstruction of the text obtained by raising poetical measure 1 or the demands of a fantastic theory 3 into a canon of Textual Criticism has hardly more validity than have the results of an entirely arbitrary change, transposition and recombination of letters. 3 The changes which show only what 1 Much study has been devoted to Hebrew poetry in the last two decades. Miiller (Die Propheten in Hirer ursprunglichen Form; Strophenbau und Responsion), Konig (Stilistik, Rhetorik, Poetik) and Sievers (Studien zur Hebraischen Metrik) have contributed largely to the recent popularity of this subject. The latest attempt to recast Zephaniah in poetical form was contributed by Fagnani to the Harper Memo- rial Volumes (1908). a Cheyne (Critica JBiblia, in loc.) has changed 2* to read: D'BO HIIT 1 ? DTJp I 1 ? Uni. He has the following note in support of one of his changes: is required as a parallel to lS though represented only by } in IBhpl. ' Bachmann(^wr Textkritik des Propheten Zephanja, S.K ; 1894) has emended to read : m^D .... HD33 vh 'UH- 50 The Text of Zephaniah. the critic thinks Zephaniah ought to have said can with safety be dismissed from serious consideration. 1 II. This free Conjectual Criticism of the text gives much support to and gains much help from the Higher Criticism, which dissects an ancient document according to subjective standards of style and thought-cogency. The integrity of Zephaniah has often been denied. The following summary condensed from the article Zephaniah by J. A. Selbie in Hastings' Dictionary of the J3ible needs very little comment. 2 Keunen was inclined to regard 3 1 *- 90 as post-exilic on account of differences both in tone and situation from the rest of the prophecy. Stade denied to Zephaniah 2 1 - 8 - 11 and the whole of chapter 3. Wellhausen (com- pare Nowack) suspected 2 2 - 3 , rejected 2 8 " 11 and treated chapter 3 as a later supplement added in two stages (1-7 and 8-20). Budde (followed by Cornill, Einleitung, 3d edition) admitted 2 1 ' 1 , 3 1 " 6 ' 7 ' 8 ' 6 ' 11 " 18 as in harmony with Zephaniah's situation; he rejected 2 4 " 16 mainly because Israel appears as the victim, not as the per- petrator of wrong ; he excluded 3 9 ' 10 as breaking the connection between 3" and 3" ; he declared 3 14 " ao to be a later lyrical epilogue. Schwally allowed to Zephaniah chapter 1, 2 13 ' 16 and perhaps 2 1 ' 4 , holding 2 6 " 1 * to be exilic and chapter 3 post-exilic, though 3'" T may be Zephaniah's. G. A. Smith denied to Zephaniah 2 8 " 11 , 3 9 ' 10 and 3 14 " 30 . Driver remarked that 2 11 seemed to be somewhat out of place and that 3 14 " 20 is somewhat doubtful, though the ' question remains whether it is sufficiently clear that the imagina- tive picture was beyond the power of Zephaniah to construct.' Davidson defended the genuineness of chapter 2 as a whole, but considered it quite possible that it had been expanded in various places; he allowed that 3 10 should possibly be omitted, but other- wise 3 1 " 13 appeared to him to be genuine, although they might suggest that the passage was later than chapter 1 ; in 3 14 " 20 he recognized quite a different situation from the rest of the book. Konig would apparently accept the whole of the book except the title which refers the prophecy to the days of Josiah. This paragraph is an unintended, though on that account no less positive, refutation of the method by which such conflicting 1 D^TJ? for Dmy and v^OY for niBP (2' 4) are of this kind. 2 The article Zephaniah in the Encyclopaedia Bibllca contains a similar summary by Driver. Criticism of the Text. 51 results are achieved. One can hardly repress the thought that a great deal of these " assured results" is due to the endeavor of each latest critic to justify his rediscussion of the subject by presenting something different from that which his predecessors have said. It would seem from this paragraph that the book in its present form is but a sorry piece of patchwork ; and yet the writer of the article Zephaniah in Smithes Dictionary of the Bible expressed the opinion that "the chief characteristics of this book are the unity and harmony of the composition, the grace, energy and dignity of its style, and the rapid and effective alternations of threats and promises." The critics themselves being wit- nesses, there is not a single verse which Zephaniah could not have written, and therefore one who is not anxious to father any- thing new can defend the integrity of the book by choosing his "authorities" with discrimination. The writer is free to con- fess that he is interested in the whole text, which may be Zepha- niah's Zephaniah, rather than in that part of it which in the opinion of each critic a Zephaniah, who was on the plane of religious evolution which he thinks his age had attained, who possessed the mentality with which he is pleased to endow him, and who wrote as he himself would have written under similar cir- cumstances, could or ought to have produced. The arguments and counter-arguments advanced for and against the genuineness of the many verses discussed are all singularly pointless and are invalid to overthrow the presumption established in favor of the integrity of the book by the mere fact that some one gave it its present form ; for to that man's mind the book was a unit and the ease with which critics brush aside the arguments of critics demonstrates that an unbiased Higher Criticism can not show that the man in question was not the Zephaniah to whom the book has so long been attributed. Arguments based on the style of a writer known only through his works are notably precarious, even though he has left extensive literary remains. The psycho- logical law of the Association of Ideas utterly condemns all argumentation based on thought development alone, for it shows that no combination or contrast of ideas even abrupt change from threat to promise is impossible. Zephaniah has left at most fifty-three verses ; it is surely absurd to build up one's conception 52 The Text of Zephaniah. of the man out of the first eighteen that are assumed to be his, and to use the conception of his style and capacities thus gained as a standard to determine which of the remaining verses he could and which he could not have written. Judged by present standards, strong arguments can be advanced to show that 3'' 5b originally stood between the two halves of I 13 : (a). In the present text it is difficult to determine where the arraignment of Nineveh ends and that of Jerusalem begins. The Peshitta has actually referred 3 1 to Nineveh, and the present chapter division of the Septuagint shows that 2 15 was referred to Jerusalem by its author. (b). The nexus between the second and third clauses of 3 6 does not seem to be very close, but 3 Bc in that it would emphasize the absolute hopelessness of Nineveh's condition would be an admir- able conclusion to 2 15 . (c). 3 1 continues in the style of I 11 and 3 2 " 5b contain the full charge on which the punishment threatened in I 12b is based. The ipsi dixerunt of the critics have no greater objective validity than those for this transposition have. A detailed dis- cussion of all the points involved in this seemingly endless dis- cussion would lead far into the theory of Israel's religious development, whose exigencies seem to demand such excisions (2 3 - 11 , 3 8 " 11 ) as are not based on purely subjective considerations, and therefore the reader who seeks for arguments of this kind to support his belief in the integrity of the book must be left to find them in the works of such champions as each verse or verse- group has found. 1 i The present tendency to find wholesale interpolations in the Prophets has been dis- cussed by Vos (The Eighth Century Prophets, Presbyterian and Reformed Review, 1898). x VITA. The writer was born in Meedhuizen, Province of Groningen, Holland, Janu- ary 25, 1883. He received his primary education in the Public Schools of Chicago, 111., and was graduated from Hope College, Holland, Mich., with the degree of Bachelor of Arts in 1903. He attended the sessions of the Princeton Theological Seminary during the years 1903-1907, receiving the Degree of Bachelor of Divinity in 1907. He was the Newberry Scholar of the Board of Education of the Presbyterian Church from 1904 to 1907. From 1907 to 1909 he was a student in Columbia University, one year as a Fellow in Semitic languages. While in Columbia University he attended Old Testa- ment lectures in Union Theological Seminary, New York.